Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

WALSALL CORPORATION BILL

WEST BROMWICH CORPORATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

BOURNEMOUTH-SWANAGE MOTOR ROAD AND FERRY BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

NORTH-EAST SURREY CREMATORIUM BOARD BILL [Lords]

PONTYPOOL AND DISTRICT WATER BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

PETITION

Taxation

Mr. Gower: I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of more than one hundred thousand persons from every county in the United Kingdom, in respect of their belief that the people of the United Kingdom are bearing an excessive burden of taxation.
The Prayer of the Petition is as follows:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that in view of the present high cost of living and the high level of taxation, immediate steps shall be taken to reduce Central Government spending by a minimum of 1 per cent. per annum, and local government spending also by a minimum of 1 per cent. per annum, thereby helping in some degree to ease the intolerable burden at present being borne by the people of this country.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
Petition to lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL

Mining Subsidence (Legislation)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will now make a statement on the recommendations of the Turner Committee on mining subsidence.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will now make a statement on mining subsidence and on the review of the full application of the recommendations of the Turner Committee and the result of the inter-Departmental consultations and the consultations with the National Coal Board; and if he will reply to the representations made to him by the deputation which was representative of the National Standing Committee on Mining Subsidence.

Mr. Boardman: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if, in his consideration of proposals in connection with compensation for damage caused by mining subsidence, he will give full weight to the financial burden at present being borne for repair of such damage by river boards.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Aubrey Jones): The Government have reviewed the recommendations of the Turner Committee on coal mining subsidence in the light of developments since the Committee's Report was published in 1949. The Government have concluded that where, as the law now stands, surface interests have no right to compensation when coal mining subsidence occurs, the National Coal Board should be obliged to make good physical damage to land, buildings, service lines and pipes—or make a reasonable payment. The surface interests concerned would include owners of agricultural land and also local authorities. Provision will be made to deal with the problems of drainage authorities, including river boards. Since subsidence damage is part of the cost of winning coal, the Government consider that this cost should be fully reflected in the price of coal.
New legislation to give effect to these proposals, which will, of course, apply to Scotland as well as England and Wales, will be introduced as soon as practicable.


It is estimated that the cost of the new measure will be about £5 million a year, or 6d. per ton of coal mined.

Mr. Swingler: While welcoming the fact that the Government have at last decided to implement in principle the main recommendation of the Turner Committee to have a comprehensive scheme, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is saying that the whole cost of such a comprehensive scheme is to be put on the price of coal? Is he not aware that the recommendation of the Turner Committee was in favour of an Exchequer grant towards the payment for this damage? Will it not have a very serious effect on the economy of the country if the whole cost of this damage, which, after all, is a national responsibility, is put on the price of coal?

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman has understood rightly. The suggestion is that the cost should be borne in the price of coal. The position is that legal rights differ at the moment as between one person and another. Those legal rights are not at the moment reflected in current property values or in the capital assets of the Coal Board. That is the case for starting afresh, and since mining subsidence is part of the cost of winning coal, then it is clear, in the absence of a Government subsidy, that the cost should be borne by the price. Nor, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, is this cost a serious one. Sixpence on the price of coal is one-third of 1 per cent.

Mr. Shinwell: As most of the mining subsidence occurred during the period of private ownership, ought not some of the cost to be deducted from the compensation paid to the private owners?

Mr. Jones: I went into that question most carefully before coming to this conclusion, and I am satisfied that were a deduction to be made as the right hon. Gentleman suggests it would be infinitesimal.

Mr. Fort: Is my hon. Friend aware that the statement he has made, that the Government have looked at this problem afresh, will be welcome in all areas where subsidence has been such a bane to the community? Will he also be aware that on this side of the House we will support any proposal which puts the weight on to those who are responsible for it, namely, the coalmining industry itself?

Mr. Boardman: Does not the Minister consider it is a matter of regret that in getting rid of this long standing injustice his only remedy is to add further to the inflationary spiral, which is bound to reflect itself in the costs of industry?

Mr. Jones: No, I cannot accept that this would add to the inflationary spiral. This will be a permanent charge and, on the basis of the solution, which I have described, the charge ought to be strictly limited. No one can complain about 6d. when the price of coal is about £7 10s. a ton.

Mr. Callaghan: Is the Minister aware that we shall want a much better explanation than that given so far as to why compensation paid should not bear part of this cost? May I ask him whether we can expect to see the Bill this Session? Is it the intention of the Government to pass this into law before the end of this Session?

Mr. Jones: Legislation will be introduced as soon as practicable, as I said in my statement, but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that practicability does not necessarily relate to the present Session.

Man Shifts

Mr. A. Roberts: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the average number of shifts worked by mine workers for the years 1931, 1935, 1938, 1950, and 1955, based on his Statistical Digest.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: On a comparable basis of calculation, 4·53, 4·78, 4·84, 4·69, and 4·68 per week, respectively.

Mr. Roberts: Does the Minister agree that the effort put forward by the mine workers of Great Britain at the present time is a meritorious one?

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that one method of raising coal output would be to raise the number of man shifts, and man shifts are lower than they need be for various causes, as the hon. Gentleman knows quite as well as I do.

Distribution Costs (Report)

Mr. A. Roberts: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power when he expects the Committee of Inquiry into the Costs of Coal Distribution to report on their inquiry.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 26th March to the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Owen).

Mr. Roberts: Taking into consideration the reply given by the Minister previously, does he intend to have that report debated in this Chamber?

Mr. Jones: That would be to anticipate the findings of the Committee. I think it only reasonable to await the findings first.

Allocations

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the difference between the maximum quantity of coal a householder in East Anglia may buy and that of a householder in the North of England.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. David Renton): A householder may buy 34 cwt. in East Anglia and 50 cwt. in the North.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that East Anglia is every bit as cold in winter as the North, and could he take steps to see that supplies are not held up, as they have been in the last two successive winters, to the Harwich area in particular, because of the climate?

Mr. Renton: I am certainly aware of the climate of East Anglia because I happen to live there, but my hon. Friend will recollect that although it is often cold in East Anglia, the cold periods tend to last longer in the North. Moreover, the climate in the North is wetter. As to supplies for East Anglia, that is another matter and perhaps by hon. Friend will put down a Question.

Prices and Stocks, Scotland

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power (1) if he is aware of the scarcity and high price of coal in the city of Aberdeen; and what steps he is taking to satisfy and solve the inconvenience and losses which are thereby imposed on the citizens of that city;
(2) how many protests he has received from the North of Scotland about the shortage and high price of fuel there; and

what steps he is taking to solve the industrial and domestic problems caused thereby.

Mr. Renton: My right hon. Friend has had no recent complaints from this area. The price of coal in Aberdeen and the North of Scotland is determined on the same principles as in the rest of Great Britain and, in fact, house coal there is cheaper than in London. As to the supply position in Aberdeen, I am making further inquiries and will write to the hon. and learned Member.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister remember that in answer to the previous Question he said that the climate in the North is wetter than it is here? Does he also realise that the geographical conditions make it necessary to have a full supply of coal there? What steps are being taken to see that Aberdeen gets it?

Mr. Renton: Aberdeen, of course, comes within the Northern region of the country for the purpose of house coal allocations and has an appreciably higher allocation than the South for that reason. On the question of price, the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot overlook the hard facts of geography.

Mr. Beswick: Can the Minister explain why it is that the price of coal in Aberdeen is less than in London? Is it due to the representations of my hon. and learned Friend?

Mr. Renton: No, Sir.

Mr. Hughes: I am disappointed.

Mr. Renton: This is a matter which cannot be answered easily at Question Time because so many factors have to be taken into consideration. The house coal prices and grades are determined by the Coal Board in the light of consultation with the distributive trade, and so far as Aberdeen is concerned I understand that the system has worked well for some time.

Grades (Calorific Values)

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the calorific value as measured in thermal units for each of the seven grades of domestic coal; and what is the average sulphur content of each and ash residue on complete combustion.

Mr. Renton: The National Coal Board advises me that this information is not available and in any event would not correctly indicate the value of each grade. House coals are graded by the Board, in consultation with the distributive trade, on a commercial assessment of their value in the domestic grate. This takes into account many factors such as size, rate of radiation and ease of lighting besides those factors mentioned by the hon. Member.

Mr. Hastings: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary realise the importance of the sulphur content of coal in relation to atmospheric pollution and that the person who buys the coal ought to have some idea about this? May I ask him how the purchaser of first-quality coal can be quite sure that he is not getting number seven quality coal?

Mr. Renton: The question of atmospheric pollution is being rightly dealt with under the Clean Air Bill and has no relation to the question of the grading of coal. Coal is graded in the light of consumer preference, and is a commercial matter for the National Coal Board.

Mr. J. Griffiths: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary—

Mr. Hastings: May I have an answer to the second part of my Question, namely, how the consumer can be sure that he is not being cheated when he orders and pays for first-quality coal?

Mr. Renton: As I have stated already, coal is graded in accordance with consumer preference—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, and if there should be a change in the attitude of the consumer towards the various grades of coal, an alteration in the grading would accordingly be considered.

Mr. Griffiths: May I ask who is responsible for grading? Is it the National Coal Board? What is the insuperable difficulty of those who carry out the grading, whoever they are, giving the calorific value?

Mr. Renton: The responsibility for grading rests, as I have said, upon the National Coal Board, but naturally the Board consults the distributive trade, which is in touch with the consumer.

Mr. Griffiths: As the consumer buys the coal in these separate grades, who

is responsible for that grading? Is it the distributor? That was the question I asked the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Renton: As I say, it is the National Coal Board, in consultation with the distributive trade. That is perfectly plain.

Sir H. Butcher: Has my hon. and learned Friend expressed surprise that this elementary information was not available from the National Coal Board?

Industrial Consumers (Prices)

Mr. Palmer: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what evidence he obtained from the National Coal Board that there is no subsidy on the part of the domestic consumer in favour of the industrial consumer before authorising the recent increase in domestic coal prices.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: There have been no recent increases in house coal prices, but the hon. Member may have in mind some estimates which I quoted in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) on 26th March to show what would be the effect, in certain towns, of a railway freight increase of 5 per cent. Increases arising from this cause do not affect the revenue of the National Coal Board, and apply uniformly to both domestic and industrial consumers.

Mr. Palmer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is great public interest and concern about the prices paid by industrial users of coal? Do not the House and the country deserve from him a full statement as to the facts?

Mr. Jones: If the hon. Gentleman will put an appropriate Question on the Order Paper, I shall be only too delighted to spread enlightenment in dark places, but the hon. Member's Question is not particularly appropriate in that connection. I can only repeat that there is no discrimination between industrial and domestic consumers.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY

Assisted Wiring Scheme, London

Mr. M. Stewart: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what representations he has received concerning the need for


an assisted wiring scheme for consumers of electricity in Metropolitan boroughs; and what action he is taking in view of his responsibilities under Section 60 of the Electricity Act, 1947.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: I have received representations that the London Electricity Board should introduce an assisted wiring scheme to help tenants in Metropolitan boroughs whose houses had faulty electrical wiring, but the Board, with the full agreement of the London Electricity Consultative Council, has decided that it would not be justified in doing so in present circumstances. Section 60 of the 1947 Act gives me no powers to make any board introduce an assisted wiring scheme.

Mr. Stewart: Does not Section 60 give the right hon. Gentleman power to make such regulations as he sees fit for the purposes of safety, and since the object of an assisted wiring scheme is to promote safety, why could he not make regulations dealing with such a scheme?

Mr. Jones: This is very largely a matter of legal interpretation, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that Section 60 gives me no powers to make regulations with regard to wiring, and that is the point in question.

Mr. Stewart: Will the Minister say why the London Electricity Board cannot do what the various Metropolitan boroughs, who used to own these undertakings, were able to do?

Mr. Jones: As I understand it, the London Electricity Board is actuated, and is proud to be actuated, by commercial considerations. It has concluded that these considerations would not justify its introducing such a scheme no matter how many schemes may be introduced by other boards. For my part, it is not for me to question or interfere with the commercial judgment of any individual board.

Mr. Stewart: Ought not public enterprises to be run in accordance with social as well as commercial considerations as was done by the excellent public enterprises which used to run these undertakings?

Mr. Jones: I should be the last to dissent from that admirable proposition.

Mr. Callaghan: Does the Minister assent to the first part of the proposition, that these enterprises should be run having regard to social obligations as well as to their commercial profitability?

Mr. Jones: I would say that nationalised undertakings should have an eye to commercial considerations, but, being public undertakings, they ought to display slightly greater latitude than private undertakings having regard to social considerations. As I understand, it is the conclusion of the London Electricity Board, rightly or wrongly, that it ought not to introduce any scheme of this nature. It is not for me to interfere with its judgment.

Transmission Line, Ullswater (Deepdale Spur)

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power when he intends to give his decision about the proposed extension of the North Western Electricity Board's main, known as the Deepdale Spur, near Ullswater.

Mr. Renton: The National Parks Commission has made representations about part of the Board's proposals; and discussions have been proceeding in the hope that agreement might be reached. This, however, has not proved possible, and my right hon. Friend is therefore reexamining the problem.

Mr. Vane: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that, after long consideration, the Lake District Planning Board and the North-Western Electricity Board came to agreement about the route of this short spur and that since the middle of January the National Parks Commission has been displaying discreditable delaying tactics? Is he aware that local patience is just about running out and that some member of the National Parks Commission, perhaps the chairman himself, may soon be thrown into the lake?

Mr. Renton: I am aware that the Lake District Planning Board approved of the line being erected. I cannot accept what my hon. Friend says about the National Parks Commission. It has its duty to do. It has now decided that it cannot


agree to part of the line being put overhead. Therefore, it is now for my right hon. Friend, who has only recently heard about this decision, to re-examine the matter in the light of it.

British Delegation (U.S.S.R. Visit)

Mr. Palmer: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will arrange to make available to the House the report of the delegation of British electrical experts visiting the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in return for the recent visit of Mr. Malenkov, Russian Minister of Power Stations, and his experts to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: As this is a technical mission for which the Central Electricity Authority is entirely responsible, it will be for the Authority to decide in due course what information about the visit can usefully be published.

Mr. Palmer: In view of the jolly but instructive time had by Mr. Malenkov and his friends when they were here, cannot we know what happens to Lord Citrine and his followers when they go to the Soviet Union?

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman had better await Lord Citrine's own account of his visit.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Government Surplus Stocks (Disposal)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Supply, in view of the fact that the Board of Trade Journal does not give the full information of Government surplus stock offered at each public auction, if he will now arrange, for the information of Members, to place copies of his Department's catalogues for all forthcoming sales in the House of Commons Library.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Reginald Maudling): Yes, Sir.

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Supply what complaints he has received from the public in respect of the disposal of Government surplus stocks; and what

action he proposes to take to deal with them.

Mr. Maudling: I have myself received no complaints from members of the public direct, but hon. Members have been good enough to refer to me a few letters from their constituents, which have generally been based on Press reports of sales and to which I have replied.

Mr. Dodds: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the letters which have been sent to his Department making serious allegations against some of his officials? If he has received those letters, will he not take legal action to clear their names? If he has not received the letters, will he accept copies of them from me?

Mr. Maudling: I should be glad at any time to receive copies of correspondence from the hon. Gentleman. The Question asks about complaints in respect of the disposal of Government surplus stocks. I have not received any complaints from the general public.

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Supply, in regard to the Press statement issued from his Department on 23rd January, 1956, concerning the disposal of surplus war materials, if he will give the date from which his Department has refused to have any dealings with the person referred to in the last paragraph of the statement.

Mr. Maudling: August, 1941.

Mr. Dodds: Is the right hon. Gentleman not surprised to find, when we are referring to a person whom we both know as Mr. X, that I have here a contract offered by his Department to Mr. X on 10th March, 1953? How does he explain the reference to 1941 when this was an offer of a contract in 1953?

Mr. Maudling: I am not the least surprised. That offer was made by one of the contract officers of my Department who did not take the precaution of referring to the black list before he did so.

Mr. Dodds: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall attempt to raise the subject on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Exploration of the Sea (International Council)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware that in 1902 Great Britain, with Germany, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Holland, Sweden and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were founder members of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea; what countries are now members of that Council; and what steps Her Majesty's Government have since taken and are now taking to extend the membership, scope and usefulness of that Council.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): Yes, Sir. The present members are Belgium, France, Iceland, the Republic of Ireland, Poland, Portugal and Spain in addition to the eight founder countries. These are all the principal fishing nations within the Council's area. Her Majesty's Government have supported the admission of new members and have always taken a prominent part in the Council's activities.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister realise that this is one of the most important and instructive international bodies at present operating, and will he take steps to make available a full account of its work?

Mr. Nugent: If there are any aspects of the Council's work that the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to have, I shall be very pleased to supply them to him.

Potatoes

Mr. Hunter: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of the heavy increase in the retail prices of potatoes, which are likely to reach 6d. per lb. in some districts, whether he will take steps to lower the present prices either by variation of the import control or by imposition of price control.

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to control the price of potatoes.

Mr. Nugent: Imports of potatoes have been freely licensed since last November

subject only to plant health regulations. With regard to price control, I do not consider it would help in present circumstances.

Mr. Hunter: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that, resulting from his Department's policy, we have the biggest shortage and the highest price of potatoes known in this country for over 25 years? Is he also aware that when there was price control there was no shortage of potatoes and that the present policy is causing distress to many families? Will he take steps to remedy the situation?

Mr. Nugent: As my right hon. Friend said to the House last week, the shortage is due to the exceptionally dry conditions in the growing period of last year, both in this country and throughout Europe. If price control were established, the effect would be to limit the amount of imports we should attract into the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]When we had price control and rationing together in the past, the ration was very tight indeed.

Mrs. Castle: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his answer simply will not wash? Is it not a fact that his Department cannot avoid responsibility for this shortage, which is as much due to a drop in acreage as it is to a drop in the tonnage per acre, and arises, therefore, from this Government's failure to plan agricultural production properly? [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] Will the hon. Gentleman, therefore, reconsider the policy of support prices, under which the consumer pays so heavily for any shortages, and return to the policy of planned production on the basis of guaranteed prices?

Mr. Nugent: No, Sir. I think that the present system will answer well. The reason for the shortage was not the acreage last year but the yield, which was exceptionally low. Due to the working of the price system now, the higher price is attracting into the country all the supplies of potatoes that are available in Europe or elsewhere. That is borne out by the fact that whereas imports last December were 3,000 to 5,000 tons a week, in the first week of April they were up to 28,000 tons.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to ascertain how much of last year's potato crop is now held by home-growers and wholesalers.

Mr. Nugent: The Potato Marketing Board carries out periodic censuses of stocks of potatoes on farms and in the hands of merchants; these figures are made immediately available to my Department.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: If the home stocks are equal to four to five weeks' supply, why the shortage and high prices? If there is any difficulty in moving clamps where substantial quantities of potatoes are being stored, will the Minister not ask the Service Department to lend a few troops to get the potatoes moving and so bring prices down?

Mr. Nugent: There is, in fact, more than four to five weeks' supply remaining in stock, but we do not get the next main crop until next autumn. Therefore, we want to be sure that we have a smooth delivery of what is available, to ensure that the supply, combined with the import of potatoes, is kept going.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is the Minister aware that even if we can get hold of some of these potatoes they are not worth having because the consumer has to cut away half of them before there is anything worthwhile left?

Mr. Nugent: In the main, ware potatoes this year have had good keeping qualities, but at this time of year potatoes run to a good deal of waste inevitably.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many tons of potatoes have been imported since 29th March last.

Mr. Nugent: Returns of imports of main crop potatoes are collected weekly by my Department. The latest available figures are:

Week ended 31st March—24,000 tons.
Week ended 7th April—28,000 tons.

Statistics of imports of new potatoes are collected by the Customs and Excise Department. Figures for April are not yet available.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that 150,000 tons of

Dutch potatoes were ordered weeks ago at a price well below the current level and they are now coming into the country? Why are they being sold at the same inflated prices of 6d. a lb.?

Mr. Nugent: The rate of import of potatoes has progressively increased week after week as prices have risen here. It is because of the higher price here that we have had increased supplies from abroad.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Has not a very satisfactory situation been established whereby imports, prices and allocation are no longer the responsibility of the Government but of market economy in private enterprise? In view of that, Mr. Speaker, are any of these Questions admissible?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, they are.

Mrs. Braddock: Is the Minister aware that new potatoes were selling in Liverpool this weekend at 15 for 3s.? Does the hon. Gentleman consider that that price is one which reflects any sort of credit on the present Government? Is he aware that there were 44,000 fewer acres under potatoes this year and that that is responsible to a very large extent for the shortage and high prices?

Mr. Nugent: I cannot accept the hon. Lady's supplementary question. As I have already said, the main cause of our shortage was the exceptionally low yield per acre last year. Whether or not the price which the hon. Lady quoted is exceptionally high I cannot say without knowing the size of the potatoes.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I apologise for raising the matter again, Mr. Speaker, but I do desire to put a serious point of order to you. I think that there is something in it and I would be most grateful if you would give a ruling on the matter. Are these Questions to be admissible at the Table when they are Questions to Ministers which do not affect those Ministers at all?

Mr. Speaker: The purpose of a Question normally is either to ask for information or to press for action. These are two admissible lines for Questions within the Minister's responsibility. If the noble Lord will look at the Questions


he will find that most of them ask for statistics, which the Minister presumably has, because he has given the answers. I see nothing out of order in that. Any suggestion that price control ought to be established is within the limits of order, as it is pressing for action. I see nothing wrong in that.

Mr. Beswick: Further to that point of order. As you have been good enough, Mr. Speaker, to confirm that the Questions are in order, is it in order for the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), when hon. Members are asking supplementary questions, to keep up a barrage of noise so as to make the questions inaudible?

Mr. Speaker: I did not hear any interruption in the course of supplementary questions.

Government Cold Store, Cardiff

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the principal other business interests of the directors of the Cold Storage Company, charged with the responsibility of managing the Government-owned Cold Store, Cardiff.

Mr. Nugent: Four directors, representing the cold storage industry, have been appointed to the Board of the National Coal Stores (Management) Limited, in addition to those mentioned in reply to a Question by the hon. Member on 27th July last year. They are:

Mr. J. Greenwood of Oldham and District Ice Manufacturing and Cold Air Stores Company Limited.
Mr. F. H. Hunt of the Western Ice and Cold Storage Company Limited.
Mr. R. H. R. Lloyd of the Cardiff Pure Ice and Cold Storage Company Limited.
Mr. W. A. P. Milne, M.B.E., of William Milne, Limited.

Mr. Callaghan: Is there any rational reason for appointing the principal competitors of this Government-owned stores to its management committee? Why appoint a poacher to keep the game?

Mr. Nugent: The people selected to serve on the board are experts in the business of cold storage and, as the hon. Member knows, there are two Government-appointed directors who have overriding powers on matters affecting national policy.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Can the Minister give an assurance that some of these people are not interested in keeping the public cold store in Cardiff closed?

Mr. Nugent: The general policy in connection with the operation of this cold store is well known to the right hon. Member and his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). The National Government gave a pledge in 1940 that this store should not be used in competition with commercial interests, and that pledge we intend to carry out. Within that limit the store will be used in the national interest.

Mr. Nabarro: Is not the proper answer to this problem—

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) was not called.

Hon. Members: He was.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Nabarro.

Mr. Nabarro: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Is not the proper answer to this whole matter to do away with nationalised cold stores anyway and hand them back to the proper owners, namely, private enterprise?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This question is getting beyond bounds.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Wokingham Hospital (Maternity Wing)

Mr. Remnant: asked the Minister of Health the estimated cost of the proposed new maternity wing at Wokingham Hospital; and what he estimates would be the cost of erecting and equipping in Bracknell a building to provide similar services.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): About £80,000, excluding the cost of furniture and equipment. No precise estimate is available of the cost of building at Bracknell, but my right hon. Friend is satisfied that it would be higher.

Mr. Remnant: Can my hon. Friend give some assurance that this is not for the convenience of the regional hospital


board at the expense of the convenience of people in the new town? To put a maternity wing at one side of the new town and an out patients' wing at the other end, about three miles away, does not seem to me to be convenient to the people of the new town.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: This new unit will be of thirty-two beds which will be shared roughly equally between the two areas. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that to provide two 16-bed units, with all the equipment and overheads, would be uneconomic and extremely costly. In a case of this kind, where only a 32-bed unit is required, the practical arrangement is to provide one unit for both areas.

Doctors (Unemployment)

Dr. D. Johnson: asked the Minister of Health (1) whether he is aware that there were 35 doctors in receipt of unemployment benefit on 19th March, 1956; and what steps he is taking to find opportunities for employment for them in the National Health Service;
(2) whether he is aware of the existence of a permanent reservoir of unemployed or under-employed doctors unable to find work under the National Health Service; and if he will institute a full inquiry into these circumstances.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: It is estimated that there are 53,000 doctors in active employment in Great Britain; the proportion receiving unemployment benefit is therefore extremely small. Every effort is made to bring vacant posts to notice. My right hon. Friend the present Minister of Labour and National Service appointed a committee to inquire into future requirements for doctors and medical students.

Dr. Johnson: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that this small number of 35 is, in fact, only symptomatic of a considerably larger number, many of them young and competent doctors, who are unable to find places in the National Health Service? Is she aware that for every vacancy there are 80 to 100 applicants?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: It was to meet these problems that the committee was appointed.

Dr. Summerskill: Can the hon. Lady say whether the supply of doctors and potential doctors today is greater than the estimated future needs?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I should like notice of that question.

Dr. Stross: Can the hon. Lady throw any further light on this problem by giving any comparable figures for the situation as it existed before 1948?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Not without notice.

Lung Cancer (Smoking)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Health what information he will now publish on the connection between smoking and lung cancer.

The Minister of Health (Mr. R. H. Turton): I am afraid I am not yet ready to add to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman), the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) on 26th March.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Why is the Minister so hesitant about following the advice of his own Medical Advisory Committee and the Central Health Service Council, given over a month ago, that the public should be informed of the known facts? Will he give an assurance that this inexplicable delay on the part of the Government is not prompted by financial consideration?

Mr. Turton: It is necessary for me first to see exactly what are the known facts compared with what they were when my predecessor, the present Minister of Labour and National Service, made a statement to the House in February, 1954.

Dr. Summerskill: Did the right hon. Gentleman listen last Friday to the Radio Doctor who, as a responsible and eminent member of the medical profession, told the British public that the facts presented two years ago were sufficiently conclusive for him to give up cigarettes? In view of that, will the right hon. Gentleman, in the public interest, see that his statements at the Dispatch Box are synchronised with those of doctors which are supported by the medical profession?

Mr. Turton: If what was stated two years ago was sufficiently conclusive, there would be no necessity for me to make further statements. I have to see exactly what developments have taken place since two years ago.

Television Microscope

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Minister of Health what representations he has received in consequence of his decision not to make funds available for the provision of a television microscope for biological research into cancer.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: No request has been made to my right hon. Friend to provide such an instrument and the question of funds has therefore not arisen.

Mr. Fernyhough: Is the hon. Lady aware that Professor J. D. McGee of the Imperial College of Science and Technology said recently that it was a thousand pities that money was not available for such a microscope? The Profesor went on to say:
One cannot watch continuously a living cell or organism as it changes and evolves and get the best picture by ad hoc adjustments. These severe limitations can be removed by the adoption of the television technique.
In view of the growing number of deaths from cancer, does the hon. Lady think it right to withhold this instrument from those who are carrying on the fight, or deny funds necessary to wage a successful fight against this scourge?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I think that the hon. Member is regarding this instrument as something far more advanced than, in fact, it is. Experiments have been carried out into the possibility of evolving an instrument of this kind, but at the moment no instrument exists. The laboratory prototypes which were constructed have been dismantled. No representations have been made to my right hon. Friend for such a development.

Opticians (Registration)

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Health whether he will make a statement regarding legislation for the registration of opticians.

Mr. Turton: While the principle is fully accepted, I cannot add to previous statements that legislation must wait until Parliamentary time is available.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is five or six years since the Crook Committee reported and that the matter is now getting quite urgent? There are a number of professional problems awaiting solution, as well as the question of registration.

Mr. Turton: I am aware of this, but there are a number of competing claims for legislation, and I am unable to say at the moment when this Bill will find a place in the legislative programme.

Sir R. Boothby: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this will almost certainly be an agreed Measure? It has been under consideration for a long time and is urgent. Would he consider consulting the Lord Privy Seal about the possibility of bringing it in within the foreseeable future as an agreed Measure?

Mr. Turton: I am grateful for that intimation from my hon. Friend.

National Health Service Estimates (Wage Awards)

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Health what provision is made in his estimate of National Health Service expenditure for 1956–57 for increases in salaries and wages already agreed or still under negotiation.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: About £2½ million was included to meet the estimated extra cost in 1956–57 of such awards for England and Wales.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the recently announced new award for nursing staff, amounting to about £6 million, be added to the £2½ million referred to, or will it come out of the existing Estimates?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: It will have to be added. It was a direct recommendation by the Public Accounts Committee that Estimates should include only those awards already agreed or those so far advanced that the awards were clearly foreseen. The last two awards have not come into that category and will require Supplementary Estimates.

Mr. Blenkinsop: As I understand it, the Parliamentary Secretary has said that further Supplementary Estimates will be presented to the House. Is it correct that this will not be squeezed out of the existing Estimates?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: indicated assent.

Whitley Council Machinery

Sir R. Grimston: asked the Minister of Health whether he is now in a position to make a statement about the Guillebaud Committee's recommendations on Whitley Council machinery.

Mr. Turton: I apologise for the length of this reply.
Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I accept these recommendations. The management and staff sides of the Whitley Councils are being invited to explore the methods used in other large-scale undertakings to introduce flexibility into national agreements. The management sides are being asked to propose alterations in the constitutions of the councils that will add three hospital representatives to each.
To facilitate this my right hon. Friend and I are willing for the representation of our Departments to be reduced by the same number on all the councils except the Optical and Pharmaceutical, where there are special Departmental interests. We are seeking the views of the management sides on the question of consultation with hospital authorities; but we are making it clear that in our opinion any arrangements that might cause further delay in the reaching of settlements should not be contemplated.
We are drawing the attention of both management and staff sides to what the Committee has said about delays. Negotiations on pay and conditions of service necessarily take time, but we are confident that all concerned will do their utmost to ensure that there are no avoidable delays.

Dr. Summerskill: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his generosity and accept the recommendation, but may I ask whether the Government are prepared to give a day to debate the other very important matters which arise on the Guillebaud Report?

Mr. Turton: The right hon. Lady should address her question to the Lord Privy Seal.

Oral Answers to Questions — VIET NAM (GENEVA CONFERENCE)

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what decision has been reached on the British proposal that the two co-chairmen of the Geneva Agreement on Indo-China should meet to discuss the situation in that territory.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): The Soviet Government informed Her Majesty's Government on 1st April that they had authorised Mr. Gromyko to take part in the meetings on behalf of Mr. Molotov in his capacity as one of the two co-chairmen of the Geneva Conference. I accordingly appointed my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Reading to represent me in my capacity as the other co-chairman. Three meetings have taken place so far and the discussions are continuing.

Mr. Brockway: I welcome that announcement, but may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether, in view of the withdrawal of the French forces from South Viet Nam, he will press for recognition of the International Supervisory Commission by the South Vietnamese Government in order to maintain a cease-fire and, even if elections are not possible in July next, will continue to press for elections to be held over the two areas of Indo-China?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that it would be a mistake for me to be drawn into what is the subject matter of the discussions between my right hon. Friend and Mr. Gromyko. Nevertheless, it is the purpose of Her Majesty's Government to procure conditions under which the Geneva Agreement can continue to operate. We certainly have in mind the ultimate unification of Viet Nam and Viet Minh by means of free elections.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANKS AND FIGHTER AIRCRAFT (EXPORTS)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what countries Centurion tanks and Hunter fighter aircraft, respectively, have been exported since 1st January, 1956.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: It has been the policy of successive Governments not to disclose details of authorised exports of


military equipment to foreign Governments. I cannot, therefore, give the countries, if any, to which these weapons have been exported since 1st January, 1956.

Mr. Henderson: Why is the Secretary of State making what is really a fantastic reply to my Question? Does not he remember that only a few months ago he gave me a reply which specified the countries which had received Centurion tanks and jet aircraft from this country during 1955? If it is possible to give these figures for the year 1955, why is it not possible to do so for the first three months of 1956?

Mr. Lloyd: It is a question of degree. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Indeed, it is. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will eventually succeed in narrowing down his question so that individual transactions are disclosed. I really believe that that is not in the interests of this country or the parties concerned.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not clear by now that the reason why the right hon. and learned Gentleman seeks to evade this Question and to give a precise answer to it, is that he is well aware that since January of this year Centurion tanks and fighter aircraft have been exported to Egypt, while, on the other hand, none has been exported to the State of Israel?

Mr. Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman is not going to draw me into accepting or denying what he has said. I maintain my opinion that it is not in the public interest, or in the interests of peace in the Middle East, that individual transactions should be revealed. The right hon. Gentleman must rely upon the Government of the day doing what the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has admitted is necessary, namely, keeping a balance in these matters.

Mr. Shinwell: Have any jet aircraft and Centurion tanks been exported to Israel since the beginning of this year?

Mr. Lloyd: I am not going to answer a question about particular transactions.

Mr. Henderson: Will not the Secretary of State at least agree it is common knowledge that Russian MIG fighters and jet bombers have, in fact, been supplied to Egypt? Will he not at least agree to consider the need for supply-

ing comparable weapons of defence and modern jet fighters and tanks to the State of Israel—without saying whether he will do it, or how many will be sent—so as to offset the supplies that have been received by Egypt?

Mr. Lloyd: That is certainly a quite different matter from the one which is contained in the Question. It is a matter upon which I have given an answer previously.

Sir R. Boothby: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that while there may have been very valid reasons for concealing these facts in recent years, this matter is bound to become a major aspect of our foreign policy in the near future? Will he also bear in mind that in course of time, if tension in the Middle East continues, this House will have the right to know what our export policy is?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not dispute for a moment that the House has the right to know what that policy is, but I think it is unwise that the House should be told about individual transactions.

Mr. Callaghan: Reverting to that last question and the Secretary of State's first reply, does not he realise that he is making an extension of his so-called principle far beyond the usual practice? Will he search the records and confirm that, when Israeli-Egyptian tension was at its height, in 1950, a pledge was given to this House—and carried out—that any transfers of available vessels to Egypt or any other country should be reported to the House when the transaction took place? Will he tell us the difference between that situation and the one existing at the present time?

Mr. Lloyd: This Question deals with Centurion tanks and Hunter fighter aircraft.

Mr. Callaghan: With great respect—did not the Minister say in his original reply that this was a principle which was commonly observed? When I ask him upon what he is basing this principle, it is not really sufficient for him to refer me back to the original Question. Can he tell us what there was in his original reply which confirms or denies the statement I have just made?

Mr. Lloyd: If the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question about vessels, I shall try to deal with it.

Mr. Gaitskell: Since the Foreign Secretary has referred to my views about the balance of arms in the Middle East, may I ask him if he is aware that in my opinion—as I have made plain in speeches in this House—it is desirable not only that a balance of arms should be maintained, but that it should be seen to be maintained? Does not he agree that it is impossible to do this unless figures of this kind are disclosed? Will Her Majesty's Government please give fresh consideration to this question, which is greatly exercising the minds of the Opposition?

Mr. Lloyd: I am quite prepared to give fresh consideration to this question, but I really do not think that, upon reflection, hon. Members on either side of the House will think it right to disclose individual transactions—and in this matter I am only pursuing the policy which the party opposite carried out.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Gaitskell: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman clarify his Answer? What does he mean, precisely, by "individual transactions"? Does he mean that he does not propose to give particulars of transactions week by week, or aircraft by aircraft, or tank by tank—or that he refuses to disclose the amount of arms sent to any country in the Middle East over a given period?

Mr. Lloyd: It is a question of degree. The right hon. and learned Gentleman who asked the Question referred to the fact that information was given with regard to jet aircraft and tanks for a period of twelve months. I do not dispute that that is a reasonable Question, but I think this one comes too close to narrowing the matter down to individual transactions.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. Would I be permitted to put a Question to the Lord Privy Seal?

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman should give notice of any Question he wishes to put to a Minister.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman—and I say this quite deliberately—has sought to evade the Question and refuses

to furnish right hon. and hon. Gentlemen with answers to the questions which they have been putting, without giving any rational reason why he refuses to do so, cannot I be permitted to ask the Lord Privy Seal if he will allow us to debate the matter?

Mr. Speaker: That would not be in order. All these questions are matters of opinion, after all.

Later—

Mr. A. Henderson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to draw attention to the fact that the Foreign Secretary evaded the contents of my Question No. 40 by saying that it was not in accordance with the custom of the House to give particulars of countries to which armaments were exported.
May I draw attention to the fact that the contents of this Question, contained in two separate Questions but exactly the same in substance, were answered by the Foreign Secretary in January to me personally? May I have guidance from you as to whether or not we could ask the Lord Privy Seal whether a debate could be arranged so that we might discuss the issues raised by the Foreign Secretary's reply?

Mr. Speaker: That seems in substance to be the same question as that asked by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). I could not allow a question on that matter now. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is anxious for a debate, there are the usual channels through which the matter can be put forward. It is certainly not in order to raise it now. As regards the remainder of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question, he must realise that these are not points of order for me. A Minister is entitled to refuse to answer a Question if he so desires, and I have no power in the matter whatsoever.

Mr. Shinwell: Has it been made quite clear to you, Mr. Speaker, that the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend is simply this: On a previous occasion a Question almost identical with the Question the right hon. and learned Gentleman put on the Paper today for the Foreign Secretary was answered in some detail, whereas on this occasion details are refused. What redress have hon. Members on these benches when that occurs?
We can always give you notice, Mr. Speaker, that we hope there will be an opportunity of raising the matter on the Adjournment, but the chances of being allowed to do so are very remote and the time provided for such purposes is very short. On the other hand, if we venture to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal, asking whether a debate can be arranged on this very important topic, he replies that it can be arranged through the usual channels. But if the usual channels are not available to some of us, what are we to do?
I am putting a point which concerns every hon. Member in the House. On some occasion hon. Members opposite may wish to have a debate on a certain topic and they will have to find ways and means of getting an opportunity to do so. I put this point quite seriously to you, Sir. Unless some provision is made to enable back benchers to have a debate on an important topic when it is under consideration, we shall be debarred from expressing our opinions in this House except through the medium of supplementary questions. What guidance can you offer?

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that there is a sort of monopoly of time taken by the Government and certain days are allotted to the Opposition on which they can raise any question. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has sufficient influence with the Opposition to secure that any topic he might wish to raise will receive a very high priority. He must see that these matters are quite outside my control.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPTIAN BROADCASTS (B.B.C. MONITORING)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is satisfied that the monitored Egyptian broadcasts are accurately translated; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Yes, Sir. I am satisfied that those broadcasts monitored by the B.B.C. are accurately translated. The work is done by experienced monitors, who check their texts against dictaphone recordings of the broadcasts. I cannot, of course, answer for other translations.

Mr. Henderson: Does the Minister's reply mean that in his view the Egyptian State Broadcasting Commission has in fact been broadcasting vicious attacks upon this country? Can he further say whether, following the representation of our Ambassador in Cairo, these attacks have now ceased?

Mr. Lloyd: The Question which the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me dealt solely with monitoring. I would prefer not to give my personal impression of these broadcasts without notice.

Captain Waterhouse: Can my right hon. and learned Friend arrange to have these monitored reports made available in the Library?

Mr. Lloyd: I will certainly consider my right hon. and gallant Friend's question.

Oral Answers to Questions — MR. LEONARD WINCOTT

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will asked the Soviet Government for information on the whereabouts of Leonard Wincott, a British subject, who took part in the Invergordon Mutiny of 1931, and subsequently went to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to work in the Leningrad Seamen's Institute and disappeared in May, 1938.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: In reply to an inquiry by Her Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow in 1955, the Soviet Government stated that Wincott had become a Soviet citizen in 1939. In these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government have no status to make any further approach on his behalf.

Mr. Mallalieu: If the Foreign Secretary cannot do anything for Mr. Wincott, can he not do something for Mr. Wincott's relatives, who are British citizens? Is he aware that this courageous seaman was sent to prison for ten years for criticising Stalin, before that exercise became fashionable? Does he not think that conditions are now favourable for getting Mr. Wincott permission to communicate with his relatives?

Mr. Lloyd: I have never been approached by Mr. Wincott's relatives, and I have no record of their address. If the hon. Gentleman will put me in touch with them I will see what can be done.

Mrs. Braddock: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman find out whether Mr. Wincott took on Soviet nationality? Is he aware that my information is that in 1954, when some English prisoners were released, they informed responsible people in this country that Frank Wincott was still in prison and that in 1955 his whereabouts were well-known? It might be possible for the Minister to take steps to find out whether Wincott took Soviet nationality or is still retained in prison for this very long period.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Lady is aware of the difficulty with which I am faced. We made inquiries in Moscow and we received a categorical assurance that Mr. Wincott became a Soviet citizen in 1939.

Mrs. Braddock: Cannot Mr. Wincott himself be asked to supply information whether he became a Soviet citizen?

Mr. Lloyd: I will consider the hon. Lady's suggestion.

DISARMAMENT

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

43. Mr. A. HENDERSON.—To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the publication of their disarmament proposals by the United States and Soviet Governments, he will make a statement on the proposals contained in the latest Anglo-French plan.

44. Mr. FLETCHER-COOKE.—To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now make a statement on the work of the United Nations Disarmament Sub-Committee.

49. Mr. WARBEY.—To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what objections he has to the latest Soviet disarmament proposals.

At the end of Questions—

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Her Majesty's Government, together with the French Government, have taken several initiatives with regard to disarmament during the past two years. The first was the Anglo-French plan of June, 1954. That was eventually accepted as a basis for discussion by the Soviet Government in September, 1954. A further initiative was taken last month at the current meetings

of the United Nations Disarmament Sub-Committee, when a revised Anglo-French plan was put forward. Both these Anglo-French plans were drawn up in such a way as to try to meet the points of difficulty which had been raised in the innumerable discussions on disarmament within the United Nations. I am circulating the text of the revised Anglo-French plan in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The United States Government have also made various new proposals, the most important being the outline of a scheme for a first phase of disarmament which Mr. Stassen introduced in the Sub-Committee on 3rd April. This proposal was based on President Eisenhower's letter of 1st March to Marshal Bulganin which, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 13th March, had the general support of Her Majesty's Government.
The Soviet Union, for their part, have also made a number of proposals culminating in those put forward by Mr. Gromyko on 27th March. Her Majesty's Government recognise that the Soviet Government, in their latest plan, have accepted some aspects of the Anglo-French proposals. They have agreed that the control organisation should be formed and established in the countries in which it will have to function, before the processes of disarmament begin. That is a point to which we have throughout attached the highest importance. Secondly, the Soviet Union have now defined the objects which they consider should be subject to that control.
There are still, however, important differences. The views of the Soviet Government and the French and British Governments differ with regard to the powers to be given to the control organisation. Under the Soviet plan the agents of the control organisation have only the right to make recommendations. Before a Government in breach of the treaty can even be called upon to stop the breaches there must be a decision of the Security Council, a decision, of course, which would be subject to a veto.
We, on the other hand, continue to believe that there must be some provision written into the treaty giving the agents of the control organisation certain rights of enforcement. The effective functioning of control must not be hamstrung by the veto. With regard to the methods of


exercising control, the Soviet Union's attitude with regard to aerial survey is rather negative. This is an important matter because without aerial inspection control cannot be effective, particularly where there are huge tracts of territory to be inspected.
Next, we believe that progress in actual disarmament must be conditional upon the effective functioning of the control organisation. We believe that our method of proceeding by stages is more likely to produce results. The Soviet plan provides for the automatic carrying out of the process of disarmament whether or not the control organisation is functioning effectively.
Thirdly, the new Soviet proposals do not deal at all with nuclear disarmament. We are all aware of the difficulties of controlling any form of nuclear disarmament, but we believe that a disarmament agreement should provide for a measure of nuclear disarmament at some stage. I know that my friend M. Jules Moch feels strongly on this point. When hon. Members read the Anglo-French plan, they will see how we have dealt with it; and it is a matter upon which we must have further discussions with the Soviet Union.
A further matter of difference to which some public attention has been drawn is the levels of conventional forces. The difference between the United States and the Soviet Union positions is not so great as has been suggested. The United States view is that the level at the end of the first phase of disarmament should be 2½ million each for the Soviet Union and the United States. The position of the Soviet Union is that the level should be 1½ million at the end of the whole process of conventional disarmament. There is obviously room for further negotiation there.
Finally—and a matter of considerable importance—there is the relationship between the process of disarmament and the settlement of outstanding political problems which are causing international tension. We have always maintained that a disarmament agreement would of itself help to reduce tension But, at the same time, it is not realistic to expect a comprehensive disarmament plan to be carried through all its stages before outstanding political issues have been settled. The two processes should continue pari pasu. That does not, however,

mean that we cannot begin to carry out, even in the present state of the world, the first part of an agreed plan.
To sum up, I think that these discussions are resulting in some progress on a number of points. There are still substantial differences. Her Majesty's Government will continue to do their best to overcome them.

Mr. Henderson: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman clarify two points? First, in the proposal in the Anglo-French plan for fixing a level of conventional armaments. No figures are mentioned. Do Her Majesty's Government favour the proposal of the Soviet Union that these armaments should be fixed at 1½ million, with lower levels for other countries, or do they support the proposal of the United States Government that they should be fixed at 2½ million with lower levels for other countries? Secondly, would Her Majesty's Government give most careful consideration to the proposal of the Soviet Union that all hydrogen bomb tests should cease? Would they not agree in principle, and say that the date on which such a ban should come into operation should be discussed?

Mr. Lloyd: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not comparing like with like. As I indicated, the American figure is a figure at the end of the first phase of disarmament. The Russian figure is at the end of the whole process. Our view is that we should not magnify that difference. I repeat that it is not comparing like with like. I do not despair of further negotiation ironing out a difference that is more apparent than real. On the question of the limitation or control of nuclear tests, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman studies the Anglo-French plan he will see how we have dealt with that.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Would not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the public are getting rather muddled and bored with the long discussions on the question of disarmament, perhaps because it is so large? Could he not put out in popular form a pamphlet explaining the stage we have got to in this matter, so that the public could see what the facts were and what the position in regard to agreement and disagreement was? At present, they are most muddled and bored.

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend may be quite right about people becoming muddled and bored. In the last four and half years I have had some part in these negotiations, so that that may very well be cause and effect. But on the whole this is a vital matter for the peace of the world, and in spite of the muddling and boredom I think there has been a narrowing of the gap between the various parties. I certainly do not despair of it being possible for us to hammer out an agreed solution, in spite of all the difficulties.

Mr. Gaitskell: The Foreign Secretary has quite properly drawn attention to differences between the Russian proposals and the Anglo-French proposals; but is it not a fact that there is a wide measure of agreement between all three sets of proposals? Could the Foreign Secretary say how it is now intended to proceed in these discussions? Would it not be possible, at least, to register the fact that there was agreement over a certain field, that there were other matters on which disagreements were slight, leaving perhaps only relatively few on which major disagreements were existing?
Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman also bear this in mind, that now that the Soviet Government have come round to what I understand our point of view was, namely, that we could proceed with disarmament of conventional weapons even if there were difficulties on the nuclear side, it would be extremely regrettable if we were to give the impression now that we would change in the opposite direction?

Mr. Lloyd: I certainly agree that to create any such impression would be regrettable. Her Majesty's Government and our Allies, I am quite certain, have not the slightest intention of allowing any such thing to happen. I believe that, subject to agreement on control, there is a better chance than ever before of making some progress. But what we have to remember is that if there is not agreement on effective control, any agreement is really a "phoney" agreement. There has to be an adequate system of control, and that is why I rather emphasised the difference of opinion between us on these matters.
We certainly do not wish to delay. The Sub-Committee is still meeting. It

shortly has to prepare a Report for the Disarmament Commission. I hope that will emphasise the points of agreement, always remembering how dangerous it is not to bring out differences of opinion with regard to the control organ.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Sub-Committee not intending to try to reach any further measure of agreement before reporting to the Disarmament Commission?

Mr. Lloyd: I very much hope that they may be able to reach agreement. The right hon. Gentleman will have seen that there was a private meeting of the Sub-Committee, I believe, last Thursday. I still hope it may be possible for agreement to be reached, though I think these things must not be allowed to drag on interminably. After private meetings have been taking place for a certain time, it is perhaps better that the matter should be ventilated. However, I do not despair of agreement being reached even in these meetings.

Mr. Warbey: Will the Foreign Secretary clarify the Britsh Government's position with regard to the proposed level of armed forces? Does the Government still stand by the level laid down in the original Anglo-French plans, or have they abandoned them now that the Russians have accepted them?

Mr. Lloyd: The point I made before is that the American figure deals with the level at the end of the first phase. The Russian figure deals with the level at the end of the process. We have said in our latest plan that that is a matter for negotiation. We are seeking to procure an agreed solution between the other parties. There is nothing really very surprising about that.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Would my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if the manufacturing and testing of thereto-nuclear weapons were to cease, there might at some stage be grave danger of a return to massive conventional warfare? Will the Disarmament Commission take account of that?

Mr. Lloyd: The two matters of nuclear disarmament and conventional disarmament have to be interwoven.

Mr. A. Henderson: In fairness to the Soviet Union, is it not a fact that they


propose the cessation of nuclear tests as a beginning to nuclear disarmament? Is that not the position?

Mr. Lloyd: In their substantive proposals they make no reference to nuclear disarmament or nuclear tests at all. But there is in the Soviet proposals a subsidiary list of certain things which might be done, and that subsidiary list makes reference to nuclear weapons.

Mr. S. Silverman: Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain in what way an agreement to abandon for the present further nuclear tests could do any harm or work any prejudice whatever on this country's freedom of action at a future stage, if the agreement should catastrophically break down.

Mr. Lloyd: As I say, if the hon. Gentleman will look at our proposals, he will see how we deal with the question of nuclear tests.

Mr. Silverman: That is not an answer to my question.

Mr. Beswick: The Foreign Secretary seems to be striving very hard to extract points of difference, and one of those points he emphasises again, namely, the fact that the Soviet proposals suggest that in the event of a breach of agreement only recommendations can be made by the Control Commission. Could the Foreign Secretary say what other alternative this Government have to put forward other than recommendations? How are we to enforce the agreement, once made? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinking in terms of armed forces, or what?

Mr. Lloyd: This matter can be debated, of course; but I have told the hon. Gentleman repeatedly on previous occasions that we maintain, and have always maintained, that it must be part of a disarmament treaty that the agents of the control organ have the right to command a cessation of breaches.

Mr. Henderson: How?

Mr. Lloyd: By calling upon the person committing the breach to stop it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Through the United Nations organisation?"] No; it must be part of the treaty that the agents of the control organ have the right to do that. If they do so, and

the person does not stop, he is in breach of the treaty. That is quite a different matter from three or four months' argument as to whether there has been a breach.

Mr. Wigg: Although the right hon. and learned Gentleman could not accept the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), does he appreciate that it is of paramount importance that public opinion in this country should be properly informed on this very difficult and complex question? Would he not therefore bring matters up to date by the publication of a White Paper?

Mr. Lloyd: I have not altogether rejected the suggestion of my hon. Friend; I certainly think that after this series of Sub-Committee meetings there must be another White Paper.

Following is the text of the revised Anglo-French plan:

FRANCE

UNITED KINGDOM

WORKING DOCUMENT: PROPOSED SYNTHESIS

SECTION I

First Stage of Disarmament

1. On the signature of a Disarmament Treaty all participating states declare that they regard themselves as prohibited, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, from the use of nuclear weapons except in defence against aggression.
2. Meeting of the General Assembly of the International Disarmament Organisation to designate the non-permanent members of the Executive Committee and approve the appointment of the Director-General of the Control Organ.
3. Recruitment of the first elements of the Control Organ.
4. Freeze, consisting of

(a) Initial declaration of the levels of armed forces and conventional armaments, including submission of military blueprints and relevant budgetary and accounting documents.
(b) Undertaking not to increase beyond declared levels or to exceed total declared expenditure.

5. Simultaneously with the entry into force of the freeze, the Control Organ, in order to provide against surprise attack, starts to operate by means of aerial surveys, and by establishing control posts at ports, railway junctions, main highways and airports. In order to verify the information supplied, the Control Organ has the right to send out mobile control teams and financial inspectors.


6. While the Control Organ is building up its efficiency, meeting of General Assembly of the International Disarmament Organisation to determine levels of armed forces and conventional armaments for other participating states, which should be considerably below the levels fixed for the five permanent members of the Security Council.
7. Report of the Control Organ that it is ready to supervise the initial steps in reducing armed forces and conventional armaments.
8. Report is accepted by Executive Committee.
9. Initial steps in agreed reductions by the five powers, and consequential reduction in military budgets.
10. Establishment of special branch of Control Organ which will supervise the limitation of nuclear test explosions.

Note: For procedure for passage from first to second stage, see Annexe.

SECTION II

Second Stage of Disarmament

1. Limitation of nuclear test explosions comes into effect.
2. Completion of first half of agreed reductions by the five powers and consequential reductions in military budgets. A proportion of the savings would be allocated to improving standards of living throughout the world and in particular in the less-developed countries.
3. Continuation and development of the functions and methods of control and inspection.
4. Other powers start on first half of reductions to agreed levels.
5. Development of the Control Organ so that it will be able to verify the cessation of nuclear production for military uses.

Note: The procedure for passage from Stage II to Stage III shall be the same as shown in Annexe for passage from Stage I to Stage II.

SECTION III

Third Stage of Disarmament

1. Prohibition, under control, of nuclear test explosions for military uses; nuclear explosions directed towards the application of atomic energy to peaceful uses may take place under controls, subject to the approval of an international scientific committee. Simultaneously, prohibition of manufacture of nuclear weapons.
2. Carrying out of the third quarter of the agreed reductions by the five powers.
3. On completion of the above-mentioned reductions, a complete prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons.
4. Other powers start on the second half of their agreed reductions.
5. Five powers start on last quarter of agreed reductions; reductions by all participating states to be completed at the same time.
6. Consequential reductions in military budgets and allocation of a proportion of the savings to improving standards of living

throughout the world and in particular in the less-developed countries.
7. The Control Organ will remain in operation in order to ensure continued observance of the provisions of the Disarmament Treaty.

SECTION IV

Suspension of Prohibitions, Limitations and Reductions
If the Executive Committee considers that an irregularity which is covered by Chapter VII of the Charter has occurred, it shall immediately inform the Security Council or General Assembly, and shall suspend such of the prohibitions, limitations and reductions provided for in the Treaty as it may consider necessary, pending a decision under the Charter by the Security Council or General Assembly.

SECTION V

Final Measures

1. Convocation by International Disarmament Organisation of an International Scientific Conference to examine the possibilities of eliminating stocks of nuclear weapons.
2. Review by General Assembly of the International Disarmament Organisation of possibility of further reduction of armed forces and armaments.

ANNEXE

Passage from the First to the Second Stage of Disarmament

1. The Control Organ shall report to the Executive Committee:

(a) when the initial steps of disarmament have been carried out, and
(b) whether it is in a position effectively to supervise the second stage of disarmament.

2. If, on the basis of this report the Executive Committee unanimously decides:

(a) that the provisions of the first stage have been carried out;
(b) that the Control Organ is in a position effectively to supervise the second stage of disarmament, and
(c) that the necessary conditions of confidence exist for embarking upon the second stage of disarmament,

the provisions relating to that stage shall take effect.

3. If the decision of the Executive Committee is not unanimous, a period of six months shall elapse before the next stage of disarmament begins.

4. Not later than the end of that period of six months, the Executive Committee shall make a further decision. It may then unanimously either:
decide that the conditions necessary for applying the provisions of the second stage have been met, in which case these shall enter into force forthwith,
or
fix a second period which shall not exceed three months.

5. Failing a unanimous decision, the matter shall forthwith be referred to the Security Council.

6. The matter will similarly be referred to the Security Council if at the end of the second period the Executive Committee does not unanimously consider that the conditions necessary for applying the provisions of the second stage have been fulfilled.

MEMBER (MISSING PAPERS)

Mr. Wigg: I beg to ask you, Mr. Speaker, a Question of which I have given you Private Notice, whether you are aware that last Wednesday important papers were stolen from a Member's bag in the precincts of the House; and, if so, what steps you are taking to investigate this matter, and what precautions are being taken for the future?

Mr. Speaker: In answer to the first part of the Question, I have made inquiries and am informed that no report has been made of papers having been stolen. The remainder of the hon. Member's Question, therefore, does not arise.

Mr. Dodds: As I am the Member concerned, Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether you have ascertained from the Serjeant at Arms' office that papers have been lost and that I, as the Member concerned with those papers, would welcome any investigation which would encourage their return?

Mr. Speaker: In the course of my inquiries I found out that the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) said at the Serjeant at Arms' office that he had mislaid or lost certain papers, and had asked whether they had been returned. That sort of thing is happening constantly in that office; hon. Members are constantly mislaying articles and property. There was no suggestion that anything had been stolen, as far as I understand. If the hon. Member has lost some papers, I am quite certain that the staff, who always do their best to help hon. Members, will do their very best to find them for him. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] But I was asked about stolen papers and I have answered accordingly.

Mr. Drayson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you not aware that the word "stolen" makes a much better headline than "mislaid"?

Mrs. Braddock: I should like to ask your advice, Mr. Speaker. I have been in this House for many weeks when certain Questions have appeared on the Order Paper with reference to the sale or use of surplus goods. I understand that the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) relates to papers appertaining to that subject. Would you make inquiries into the fact that the Questions that have been on the Order Paper have never been answered satisfactorily; that up to the moment the Member responsible, for some reason or other, has been unable to obtain the Adjournment to discuss the matter; that the whole of these proceedings, both inside the House and in the country, as well as internationally, are surrounded by very suspicious factors indeed; that there is a suggestion that, arising out of this matter, already one man has been murdered. [Laughter.] I am serious; this is a very serious matter indeed.
Many people seem to have been intimidated about the question of the sale of surplus materials. Do you not think, Sir, that in the interests of the House, of the country and of the officials as well, steps ought to be taken immediately to have the whole matter discussed and all the facts brought to the Floor of the House?

Mr. Wigg: If the hon. Lady has any evidence to support the point which she has put forward, ought this question not to be considered by the Committee of Privileges, since it involves murder, which must involve the privileges of this House?

Mr. Speaker: I have not heard anything about murder before. I understood that this question of surplus stores has been made the subject of an inquiry. I thought that was a Question answered either by the Prime Minister or the Minister of Supply the other day in which it was stated that an inquiry was proceeding. There again, if hon. Members are not satisfied with the inquiry, there are several courses open to them. It is a matter between hon. Members on both sides of the House, and not for me at all.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings of the Committee on Road Traffic [Money] (No. 2) exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Orders of the Day — TRANSPORT (DISPOSAL OF ROAD HAULAGE PROPERTY) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1.—(DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY TO COMPANIES REMAINING UNDER COMMISSION'S CONTROL.)

3.57 p.m.

Mr. Frank McLeavy: I beg to move, in page 2, line 40, to leave out "three-fortieths" and to insert "one-fortieth."
The purpose of this Amendment is to reduce the number of unlicensed vehicles from the figure in the Bill, 7½ per cent., to 2½ per cent. While we on this side of the House do not think it is wise to stipulate in the Bill the precise number of vehicles which the Transport Commission should have out of service at any given time, we think in any case that the figure suggested in the Bill is far too high, that it will not afford the Commission with adequate vehicles to discharges its responsibilities to industry and certainly will not give to the Commission a reasonable reserve of vehicles for the purposes of meeting any emergencies which may arise.
So that the House should be in a fair position to appreciate the issues involved in this Amendment, it will be necessary to look at the whole background from which this stupid proposal of limitation of vehicles has emerged. By the provisions of the 1953 Act, the Transport Commission was allowed to retain only 3,500 vehicles of its vast road transport fleet. The rest were to be disposed of to private operators. It is quite clear that the Government had been very seriously misled by the extravagant claims of the Road Haulage Association that there was a ready market waiting for the rest of the vehicles to be sold by the Disposal Board.
In spite of the lapse of considerable time and of every conceivable manoeuvre and device being applied by the Government in order to dispose of the vehicles, the Government were unsuccessful in finding purchasers for the most important sections of British Road Services. Industry was becoming gravely concerned lest

this efficient service would be impaired by further manoeuvres, and it made its views very forcibly felt in the Ministry of Transport. Failure to sell the vehicles at a fair price and the growing opposition of industry compelled a reluctant Minister of Transport to reconsider the whole question afresh.
Therefore, in July last year the then Minister of Transport announced to the House that, because of the success of British Road Services, particularly of the trunk services, and because industry was well satisfied with the service rendered to it, the Government had agreed that the Commission should be allowed to increase the number of vehicles that it would be allowed to retain for the maintenance of the services to industry. The Minister said:
Her Majesty's Government have asked the Chairman of the Disposal Board to advise them as to the number of vehicles required to be retained for this purpose over and above the total of 3,500 vehicles for all purposes already authorised for retention. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st July, 1955; Vol. 544, c. 573.]
My hon. Friends and I did not on that occasion seek to embarrass the Government in any way following this reversal of Government policy. We felt that it was at least to the Government's credit that they had realised their error and had had the courage to make amends. We were entitled to assume that, having made their decision, they would not again be driven by pressure to retrace their steps. Unfortunately, we were over optimistic in that assumption.
Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve, Chairman of the Disposal Board, therefore, in accordance with the decision of the Government, proceeded to assess, in terms of vehicles, the Commission's requirements. We all know the outstanding ability of Sir Malcolm and the efficient and thorough way with which he discharges his duties in the public interest. No one would in any way doubt that any recommendations which he made would be based upon a realistic figure arrived at after a most searching investigation of all the surrounding circumstances. Sir Malcolm is not the type of public servant who would be swayed by pressure from any quarter. He would faithfully carry out his task without fear or favour.
It was, therefore, not surprising to us when the Government accepted his recommendation that the Commission, to


carry out its responsibilities to industry, should retain an additional 7,500 vehicles. What did surprise us, however, was the sudden change of Minister followed by the equally sudden change in the number of vehicles to be licensed by the Commission. It is evident to us that the force at work must have been very strong, first to get rid of the Minister, and then to tamper with the terms of the recommendation by the Chairman of the Disposal Board which the Government had already accepted.
The present Minister's explanation of the extraordinary change of view on the part of the Government left the Standing Committee with the feeling that his explanation was, at least, very unsatisfactory and unconvincing. The Minister, first of all, said:
I felt that I must look at that number and see whether there was a reasonable case for saying that it was either too high or too low.
Surely this was the task which the Government had entrusted to Sir Malcolm and they had accepted his figures. Why this belated lack of confidence in the Chairman of the Board? What greater knowledge in transport matters has the present Minister of Transport over that of his predecessor to warrant this repudiation of Government policy?
The Minister also told the Standing Committee of the meeting between Sir Malcolm, Sir Brian Robertson and the interests representing the road hauliers at which the figure of 7½ per cent.—representing 582 lorries—was agreed. We understood from the Minister that the figure of 7½ per cent. was arrived at after taking into consideration vehicles which would normally be off the road for repair and other purposes. What right had the Road Haulage Association to attend such a conference? Surely it was a matter purely between the Board on the one hand and the Commission on the other. It was a rechecking of the requirements of the Commission, and that could more properly have been done by the two parties concerned instead of bringing in a third party.
The Minister also said—the longer he spends trying to explain away this extraordinary conduct, the more confused he becomes—that
British Road Services will have the right to apply for A licences for the 582 vehicles

which will be granted by the normal procedure if a case can be made in the ordinary way before the licensing authority."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 6th March, 1956; c. 5–6.]
It is clear that the Minister was not sure whether the figure of 7½ per cent. was a just one, for he would otherwise not have referred to the possible application for additional licences.
My hon. Friends and I opposed the 7½ per cent. cut in the number of licensed vehicles. It is vindictive against the Commission, it is an appeasement of the worst possible kind to private road interests, it will increase the Commission's administrative costs, it is a miserable, petty, mean way of facing the problems confronting British transport, and it is entirely out of accord with what we are anticipating will be the appeal to the nation by the Chancellor of the Exchequer tomorrow.
We shall probably be told of the serious financial difficulties of the nation, of the need for the nation to cut out unnecessary expenses, to cut out wastage of manpower here and there, to make a supreme effort to keep down the cost of living, to try to make our goods at such a price that they will not be priced out of the export market—and here today, the day before the Budget, we are having this miserable provision, designed deliberately and wilfully, by the Minister of Transport to make it more difficult for the Transport Commission to provide an effective service to the trading interests of the country. It is designed to cause more administrative costs in the application for the transfer of licences. It is designed to make it more difficult for the Transport Commission to deal with the vast problems which confront it.
In these transport debates, I have always made an appeal for the application of common sense to these problems. This provision of 7½ per cent. is really a miserable attempt by the Government to appease the Road Haulage Association, after the Government's bitter let-down by the Association. I remember when the then Minister of Transport, the present Colonial Secretary, came to the Dispatch Box and how cocksure he was that the road hauliers were waiting only for Parliament to give them the authority to purchase these vehicles from the Transport Commission.
All the expectations of the Government, inspired by the misinformation and


the optimism of the Road Haulage Association, failed to materialise. The Government then changed their Minister of Transport, who was no less opposed to nationalisation than the present Minister, because pressure was brought to bear, and then we got this miserable amendment in the Bill, which is a discredit—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is very wide of the Amendment.

Mr. J. A. Sparks: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Kenneth Thompson: On a point of order. I do not think it can have escaped the notice of many hon. Members in the House that all except the more impassioned and closing parts of the speech which we have just listened to were read, and I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, will wish to give the House some good advice on the temptation of hon. Members to read their speeches.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members know the rules as well as I do. I must say, speaking frankly, that I was unconscious of the hon. Member reading his speech. Indeed, on the contrary, I heard several freely expressed passages in his speech in which he seemed to me to be flying on the unpinioned wing. It is out of order to read speeches.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I declare my interest at once as the President of the Road Passenger and Transport Association, an organisation primarily concerned with private enterprise long-distance haulage. I think that the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy), who moved this Amendment, has been a little less than just in indulging in so much vituperation of ministerial policy on this particular aspect. He might have mentioned in his speech that the figure of 7,750 vehicles put forward by Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve, supported by Sir Brian Robertson, was subsequently made the subject of a reduction of 7½ per cent., or 582 vehicles, after careful agreement between Sir Brian Robertson and Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Nonsense.

Mr. Nabarro: Did the right hon. Gentleman say "Nonsense"? Is he controverting the ministerial statement made in Committee? Here are the exact words—

Mr. James Callaghan: Words from on high.

Mr. Nabarro: Not words from on high, but words quoted by the Minister in Committee. I was sorry not to be a member of that Standing Committee, but I was engaged on another at the time. He said:
This particular method"—
that is, the 7½ per cent.—
was achieved by Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve, who called a meeting with Sir Brian Robertson and the interests representing private hauliers. At that meeting it was agreed that one way of meeting the admittedly difficult situation would be to adopt a device, which is not unknown in the road haulage industry, of regarding a certain number of lorries as being likely for one reason or another to be under repair or off the road for some purpose. It was agreed between them that the proportion should be 7½ per cent., or, perhaps what is of more interest to the Committee, 582 lorries."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 6th March, 1956; c. 5.]

Mr. Strauss: That merely states the agreement of the Chairman of the Commission that the number of lorries normally off the road for the purposes of repair and overhaul is 7½ per cent. No one controverts that.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member for Bradford, East, throughout his speech, accused my right hon. Friend of violently discriminating against the Transport Commission. In fact, the Chairman of the Commission has given his consent to the figure of 7½ per cent. or, converted to number of vehicles, 582.

Mr. McLeavy: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for giving way.
I was not unjust to the Minister at all. What I referred to—and I am sure that the hon. Member, on reflection, will agree with this—was the original decision of the Government to invite the Chairman of the Disposal Board to examine the position as to how many vehicles were required to allow the Transport Commission to carry on its various services to industry. He reported, and his recommendation was 7,750 vehicles. That was considered by the former Minister of Transport, it was


accepted by the Government and nothing further was heard of it until the new Minister came on the scene, when he, apparently for some unknown reason, asked the Chairman—

Mr. Speaker: Order. These interventions are too long to make in the middle of another hon. Member's speech. There will be opportunities for all the arguments to be answered in complete speeches. Do not let us allow the debate to degenerate into an argument.

Mr. Nabarro: I do not think that there can be any reasonable doubt that there was agreement as regards the figure of 7,750 vehicles and there was agreement as to the off-the-road or out-of-commission proportion, whichever description one likes to apply, of 7½ per cent.
There are two points that the House should carry in mind. There must be wide divergence of opinion as to whether 7,750 vehicles is the correct figure, or whether 7½ is the correct percentage. The fact is that private enterprise interests, of which I am privileged to be a small part, regard the 7,750 vehicles as much too high a figure. The Transport Commission regards it as considerably too low. The opposite applies to the percentage. The Commission regards the percentage of 7½ as being too high, and private enterprise interests regard it as being too low.
I believe that in this context, both in regard to the total number of vehicles and the percentage, a reasonable average or mean has been struck by my right hon. Friend, who has been guided by the prior agreement and consent of the principal contesting parties, namely, Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve, Sir Brian Robertson and the private enterprise interests. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will flatly reject the Amendment and that having upheld 7½ per cent., in the Standing Committee upstairs, he will not monkey about any further with the figures written into the Bill in Committee.

Mr. Ernest Davies: By what authority does the hon. Member say that the Transport Commission gave consent to this figure?

Mr. Nabarro: I am quite certain of the integrity of my right hon. Friend and the accuracy of his figures. From

the bottom of column 5 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, of the Standing Committee, I quote these words:
It was agreed between them that the proportion should be 7½ per cent., or, perhaps what is of more interest to the Committee, 582 lorries."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 6th March, 1956; c. 5.]
I am, of course, precisely correct, and the hon. Member is exactly wrong, as always.

Mr. Davies: No. I ask the hon. Member to realise that when the Commission agreed to a certain figure it did so on the basis of there having to be a figure. It never agreed that there should be any figure whatever, as I understand it; it did not give its consent to this.

Mr. Nabarro: I am beginning to be driven to the conclusion that the hon. Member cannot read the English language.

Mr. G. A. Pargiter: As I understand, what the Chairman of the Commission agreed to was that the figure of vehicles which might be off the road for various purposes at any time might be 7½ per cent. I challenge the Minister to say that he went beyond that. That is the point we want to get clear.
What the Minister has used, at the behest of the Road Haulage Association and its supporters and representatives, is that it was then said, "All right. We will freeze this figure of 7½ per cent. altogether. Those vehicles shall be regarded as not being available to be on the road." That is an entirely different picture altogether. What it amounts to is that a condition and principle have now been applied that as 7½ per cent. of the Commission's vehicles will be off the road for repairs or various other reasons, its number of licences will be reduced by 7½ per cent. That has never before been said to any organisation.
We would be happier if the Minister were to say that it was a good idea that the Commission needs to have this number of vehicles off the road to keep them in proper repair and safe for use. If he then said that he would treat everybody alike, private enterprise as well as the nationalised undertaking, that would be fair and equitable. But to say that the Commission must have a certain number of vehicles off the road and will, therefore, be deprived of that number of


licences, with all the attendant administrative difficulties of changing licences and getting one vehicle back in service and another out of use, although it may sound an administrative detail, is something which must be recorded, which must take place and which would involve considerable administrative time. Those are the facts.
If the Minister were to say that the 7½ per cent. was agreed as the proportion of vehicles that the Commission might have off the road, but without any undertaking that it wished its fleet to be reduced by that amount, I should be perfectly happy; otherwise, I invite the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and the Minister to agree that what is sauce for the goose is equally sauce for the gander, and that what is good for public enterprise, if it is in the cause of road safety, is equally good for private enterprise.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I, also, must disclose an interest as President of the National Conference of Road Clearing Houses. The Amendment deals only with the percentage. It seeks to reduce the figure from 7½ to 2½ per cent. It does not deal with the global figure at all, as the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy), who moved the Amendment, well knew.
Not one organisation in the country believes for a moment that 2½ per cent. is the proper number of vehicles to be off the road. As is reported at column 6 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Standing Committee proceedings, Sir Brian Robertson agreed to the 7½ per cent. Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve certainly adopted that as the natural device. The long-distance road hauliers, to whom I have listened, have entirely endorsed 7½ per cent. as being the proper figure. The Amendment does not deal with the total number of vehicles which should or should not be allocated, and in my submission practically the whole of the speeches which dealt with those arguments were out of order.
I submit that we should get on to other matters, because there is nobody, trade union or otherwise, who can support a figure of 2½ per cent. as being the percentage of vehicles off the road; and that is the only point of the Amendment.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) spoke of 7½ per cent. as being the right figure for the number of vehicles off the road, but can he point to any other legislation affecting any other firm or industry in which it is laid down that a certain percentage of vehicles must be off the road at the same time? Is it not most unfair that British Road Services should be singled out for this particular piece of bad legislation?
Does the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet not understand that the agreement to which the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) referred was an agreement under pressure? That much is obvious. The original figure of 7,750 was put forward by Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve. It was accepted in principle by the British Road Services. The fact is that it was a consequence of the intervention by the Ministry of Transport that the figure has had to be reduced, because private enterprise was determined to lower the total number of vehicles available to B.R.S.
Why are the two hon. Members who have spoken from the benches opposite so keen to make sure that B.R.S. does not have sufficient vehicles? It is because B.R.S. is so efficient. The more vehicles B.R.S. has, the better service it can give. If the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) does not believe that, he has the evidence of his own Minister, who paid a compliment to the wonderful trunk services now available to the nation as a whole.
The Bill is an indictment of private enterprise. It is not being brought in because hon. Members opposite want it. Had they had their way, the Minister would not have brought in the Bill. They would have kept to the 1953 Act, and all that B.R.S. would have had would be the 3,000 or so vehicles. The fact is that the traders, who happen to be a little more important than either of the two hon. Members, suddenly realised that the trunk services which have been built up by B.R.S. were being destroyed and that the efficient service could not be maintained. So the cry was made both to the present Minister and to his predecessor that something must be done to stop the old system coming back.
That is why the Bill was introduced. Even so, during its last stage, efforts had


to be made by the Government to try to appease the hon. Member for Kidderminster and the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet, who are typical—

Mr. Rees-Davies: May I be permitted to say that there was no representation of which I am aware from either of the associations for whom I have been at one time or another concerned—or, I think I may say, with which my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has been concerned—

Mr. Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Rees-Davies: —in any way in connection with the 7½ per cent. whatsoever, and that it is entirely the Government's own move in the matter and one which we endorse as being absolutely correct? We have not in any way sought to appease anybody.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Mellish: The hon. Member may be an able lawyer, but he has given his case away.
What did the Government do? They tried to find a device to cut down the global figure. What stuff and nonsense it is to talk about this being the number of vehicles off the road for maintenance. Everyone knows that B.R.S. maintain their vehicles in a better way than ever before. These 582 vehicles, which comprise the 7½ per cent. which is the substance of the Amendment, will not be licensed. Therefore, this proposal is a device to reduce the total number of vehicles available at once to B.R.S., and that is what we are protesting about.
The hon. Gentleman opposite says that his own organisation made no representations about the global figure, but it is a fact, as, I am sure, the Minister will agree, for one has only to read Motor Transport, the organ of the Road Haulage Association, to know it, that there were a good many representations to the Ministry about this matter. It would be most unfair to suggest that those organisations did not do very much about it.
I did not realise that the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) was the President of the National Conference of Road Clearing Houses. I can only hope and pray that there will not be a repetition of that unpleasant business we had before, when the clearing houses were one of the worst sinks of iniquity—

Mr. Rees-Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. If the hon. Member makes an iniquitous attack, without foundation and outside the scope of the Amendment, on an organisation I would respectfully submit to you that he is entirely out of order and will cause further vituperative replies which, in my opinion, it would be indelicate and inappropriate to utter.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I have only just arrived in the Chair. I have not heard the debate till now, but would point out that this is a narrow Amendment to reduce three-fortieths to one-fortieth. I hope that the House will deal with that.

Mr. Mellish: I am quite sure that both you. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and Mr. Speaker, do not need to be told by the hon. Member, or the hon. Member for Kidderminster, whether I am in order or not. Neither is so capable as to be able to do your job as well as his own. Although I am quite prepared to take directions from you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I am not prepared to take them from them.
The argument has been about how the figure of 7½ per cent., which is the three-fortieths, came about. We were explaining, when you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, came into this most interesting argument, what it meant, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet raised the matter of the clearing houses, and I was saying, in a passing reference, what an iniquitous lot they were. I repeat that they were one of the worst gangs in transport, and I hope that we shall not see the like again. I shall leave it at that.
We ask the Minister for a positive answer to the question whether there was from him or his Department any pressure put upon the British Transport Commission to accept this figure. Is it not right that this figure was opposed in principle and in practice by B.R.S.? Is it not a fact that they did not want it, but had to have it? We are entitled to know. I do not disbelieve the Minister, because I know him very well personally, when he says, as he has said, that the figure was an agreed one.
This negotiation, however, was not unlike a trade union negotiation about wages. The trade union negotiators ask for £1 increase, but they come out from


the conference with an increase of 5s. That is said to be the agreed figure, but that is not to say that they are satisfied with 5s. Was not this 7½ per cent. as welcome and as agreed as that? Would it not be right to say that there was great opposition by the Commission to the figure?
There is another consideration. I am sure that the Minister will admit that the Commission's work on maintenance has been first-class. That is one of the arguments why its trunk services should be retained. Moreover, B.R.S. mean a great deal to the drivers they employ, and they regret the iniquitous system of the clearing houses and the Haulage Association, and hope that there will not be a revival of that old, former business.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): It may be convenient if I intervene in the debate now. If I may use the words of Mr. Speaker, I should say that one or two hon. Members in the debate have been flying on unpinioned wings, and that perhaps I may now mention a few facts. The hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy) made a very long and able speech, as he usually does, and paid tribute to Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve. I should like to endorse that tribute. The hon. Member was kind enough to say that Sir Malcolm could never be accused of doing other than trying to serve the public interest.
I must remind the hon. Gentleman and the House of what Sir Malcolm said, and this is the relevant statement on which I based my decision. Sir Malcolm, in his report to my predecessor, dealing with this question of the number of lorries, said:
The answer to your reference to me"—
that is, about the question of the number of lorries—
is not capable of a mathematical answer. It involves a difficult matter of opinion.
And, of course, so it does.
While my hon. Friends are quite correct in quoting me as saying in Committee that the Chairman of the Transport Commission and the private hauliers came together under the chairmanship of Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve and agreed this 7½ per cent. figure, I want to make it quite plain, because I

am the spokesman of the Commission to this House, that, of course, the Chairman of the Commission did not want to give up a single lorry if he could help it. I do not blame him for that. He wanted to maintain as large a number as he could, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) very rightly said, it has always been the Commission's view that 7,750 lorries was not as many as, in its view, it would like to use. Equally, it was the view of the private interests in the industry that that number was far too many.
Why I took the decision to embody in the Bill this 7½ per cent., which the hon. Member for Bradford, East and his hon. Friends are seeking to reduce to 2½ per cent., was that I could not feel myself satisfied that anybody could say—and I doubt whether Sir Malcolm himself would maintain—that there was any certainty about the exact figure. Therefore, when I found that both sides of the industry had agreed that the figure of 7½ per cent. had relevance to what I may call the number of lorries afloat, I accepted it.
I want to make this plain. This is not an enforced deduction in the number of lorries. This provision merely puts upon the Commission the necessity to ask for 1933 Act licences for these lorries, and if the Commission can justify the licences on the normal grounds it will get them.

Mr. Mellish: The 7,750 figure was not agreed upon, was it, in the sense that there was not pressure to make the Commission reduce the global figure? Would it not be right to say, to put it in a nutshell, that the 7½ per cent. is a device to reduce that figure?

Mr. Watkinson: It would not be right at all. I hope that I shall succeed in making plain exactly why I took this figure.
I took it, first, because this figure of 7½ per cent. was agreed. I have made plain how it was agreed. The percentage was a reasonable and practical float that any organisation might have. I did not decide to say we should deduct 7½ per cent. What I have said in the Bill is, "Let British Road Services justify these 582 vehicles on the grounds that they are necessary for the maintenance of their services." If they can do that, as far as


I am concerned, and as far as all my colleagues are concerned, then good luck to them. All we say is that they are to be justified on the normal grounds that are put forward when one goes for a licence under the 1933 Act.
Therefore, the issue is not in any case—and the Amendment we are discussing does not deal with—the question of the total number of lorries. All that is necessary for me to do is to explain why this particular figure was written into the Bill. I think it is a proper test, which will give some satisfaction to the public and to the industries concerned, that the figure which we have chosen is a figure justified not by political but by practical reasons, and that is why I attach great importance to it.

Mr. Callaghan: If this is to be judged by practical, and not political, considerations, and I accept that for the moment, can the Minister tell us whether he was proposing to make a similar reduction in the special A licences of private firms?

Mr. Watkinson: The hon. Gentleman is not on a very good principle, because, in a matter which we shall discuss later, it will be clearly shown that I am only too anxious to apply tests and checks to both sides of the industry. In this case, it is purely a matter of opinion, and, obviously, it is not appropriate for me to say, as I was invited to do, that 7½ per cent. is the right percentage of vehicles off the road at any one time. That would be a stupid thing for me to do, and I have no intention of doing it.
There is some reasonable doubt whether the figure of 7,750 lorries is right or wrong, but I am sure that it is not absolutely wrong or absolutely right. I am simply saying that we will have that figure of 582 lorries, and if this can be justified by hard practice and the facts of operation, then good luck to British Road Services. What the Opposition are asking is that I should make that figure of 582 lorries into 194, which does not seem to me to be an important matter of principle, and I therefore could not advise the House to support the Amendment.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: The Government are very uncomfortable about the reason why this 7½ per cent. was first incorporated in the Bill. It was, in fact, not

because the Government thought it was right to reduce the total number of vehicles by 7½ per cent., but because of the pressures brought to bear upon them, and I should like to put before the House—

Mr. Watkinson: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I have just said that I took the relevant decision on this matter, and I have explained to the House why I did it. If the right hon. Gentleman is now suggesting that I misinformed the House, I should be glad if he would say so in fact.

Mr. Strauss: I propose to put clearly before the House the history of this matter. What happened was this. The Government decided to retain the trunk services in the hands of the Commission. I will not now go into all the arguments about why they came to that decision, as it was a decision which we welcomed. Then, the Minister of Transport had confronting him the problem of how many lorries the Commission could retain for that purpose, and, as he quite rightly says, that was not a question to which there could be a satisfactory mathematical reply. If that had been so he would have decided it himself; but it is a question of balance.
For that purpose, he very wisely called in Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve, the Chairman of the Disposal Board, as arbitrator to advise what was the right figure. Sir Malcolm said that this was a matter of opinion, and that, in his opinion the right figure was 7,750 lorries. Obviously, it was possible that that figure was either too high or too low, but that was the arbitrator's figure and it was the figure inserted in the Bill when it was published. That was to be the number of lorries which the Commission was to retain for running its trunk services.
When that figure was announced, as we have been told, the Road Haulage Association said "This figure is monstrous; it is far too high," and we should have expected them to do so. The arbitrator's figure was therefore reduced by the Government on two grounds, and they cannot make up their minds which was the real one. First, they say that it has been generally agreed that the number of lorries which are normally under repair in any organisation running lorries is


about 7½ per cent. That being so, it was convenient to argue that the total should be reduced by that amount.
4.45 p.m.
The next thing was that we had an Amendment moved by the Government during the Committee stage of the Bill affecting this change, and we were told that those were the grounds for reducing the figure of 7,750. But when we argued, as one of my hon. Friends has pointed out just now, that this number of vehicles under repair at any time had nothing whatever to do with the case, any more than the flowers that bloom in the spring, because nobody ever dreamt of depriving of their A licences the vehicles belonging to private owners which were under repair, it became clear that the Minister's action had nothing to do with the number of vehicles under repair. He then said that it was his private decision, and that he did not justify it on those grounds.
Therefore, we have two grounds on which it is suggested the change has been made. One is that it has something to do with the number of vehicles under repair and the other is that it has nothing to do with that at all, but was the Minister's own opinion. I wonder if the Minister would have had that opinion if there had not been violent protests from the Road Haulage Association against the figure of 7,750 lorries.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee stage of the Bill, and at the concluding remarks of the Minister in introducing the Amendment, when he will find that my right hon. Friend said:
They would mean that 582 lorries out of the total would not originally get A licences but would be entitled to have them if a case could be made out for granting them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 6th March, 1956; c. 6.]
That is precisely what he said today, and it is no different from what he said at the time.

Mr. Strauss: I do not understand the hon. Member's point, although I heard what he said. The original idea was that, by Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve's suggestion, the number of lorries which the Commission could own should be 7,750, with the implication that it would get

special A licences for the whole lot. Now, a change has taken place, for the reasons which I have given, and the Commission is not to get 7,750, but that figure less 7½ per cent. If it wants A licences for the remainder, it must go through the procedure of the Traffic Commissioners, and it does not know what the answer will be.
My complaint is that the Road Haulage Association—maybe its representatives did not come here and see the Minister individually—put on him very severe political pressure and very sinister political pressure, and that, in fact, it was this that brought about the change in Government policy and caused him to reject the arbitrator's decision, which he would not have done if the Association had not raised its voice.
The Minister also says that we are suggesting a reduction from 7½ per cent. to 2½ per cent., although the Minister knows that it is the principle which we are discussing. In the Committee stage, we tried to secure the elimination of the 7½ per cent. altogether, but we were turned down by the Government, and, today, having been turned down we say, "Very well, we were voted down in the Committee and it is only open to us at this stage to modify the 7½ per cent. figure," which is what we are trying to do in this Amendment.
It is plain that the argument about the number of vehicles under repair is an attempt to find a plausible excuse to enable the Government to reduce the number of vehicles to which the Commission would otherwise have been entitled. I should like to ask them if they are going to apply the same principle to private operators in respect of the number of A licences to which they are entitled.
We are told that the Minister wants to sell the meat organisation and the parcels service. Both organisations have a substantial number of vehicles. Of those vehicles, 7½ per cent. will be under repair most of the time. When the parcels service vehicles are sold to some private owner or owners, will they be told that 7½ per cent. of their vehicles will not be entitled to A licences? I am sure that the answer is that the Government will take no such action over a fleet owned by private hauliers and that they confine such action to fleets which are publicly owned.
It was taken as a result of pressure, or if the Minister dislikes that word, because of the potential activities by politicians in the House expressing the resentment of the Haulage Association when it found that the Commission was to have 7,750 vehicles to compete with its members.
Normally when an arbitrator is appointed in some matter of dispute—and the word arbitrator was used not by us, but by the Government—the decisions of the arbitrator are accepted. In commerce and business, as hon. Members know, the arbitrator's decision is accepted by all sides, unless he is wrong on a point of law. That is the decent and honest thing to do. In this case the arbitrator tried to see that there was equity between the Association and the Commission. That figure is now rejected by the Government.

I know that we cannot carry the Amendment, because the Government have the majority, but we should not like the matter to leave the House before hon. Members and the public realise what has happened, what a sinister story it is, and what very real political strength the Road Haulage Association has on affairs of the Government and on the Minister of Transport; and that it is as a result of private pressure by private interests that the Government have changed their minds on a decision which they previously considered to be in the public interest. I hope that in the Division Lobby as many hon. Members as possible will support the Amendment.

Question put, That "three-fortieths" stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 207, Noes 156.

Division No. 143.]
AYES
[4.54 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Joseph, Sir Keith


Aitken, W. T.
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Warwick &amp; L'm'tn)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Keegan, D.


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Fell, A.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.


Arbuthnot, John
Finlay, Graeme
Kerr, H. W.


Armstrong, C. W.
Fisher, Nigel
Kershaw, J. A.


Atkins, H. E.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Kimball, M.


Balniel, Lord
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lambert, Hon. G.


Barlow, Sir John
Freeth, D. K.
Lambton, Viscount


Barter, John
Gibson-Watt, D.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Glover, D.
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Godber, J. B.
Leavey, J. A.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Gower, H. R.
Leburn, W. G.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Graham, Sir Fergus
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)


Bidgood, J. C.
Green, A.
Linstead, Sir H. N.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Gresham Cooke, R.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Black, C. W.
Gurden, Harold
Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.


Body, R. F.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.
Lucas, P. B. (Brantford &amp; Chiswick)


Braine, B. R.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
McKibbin, A. J.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.


Bryan, P.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Madden, Martin


Burden, F. F. A.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Channon, H.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Cole, Norman
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Marples, A. E.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Marshall, Douglas


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Horobin, Sir Ian
Mathew, R.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Maude, Angus


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Howard, John (Test)
Mawby, R. L.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Molson, A. H. E.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Moore, Sir Thomas


Crouch, R. F.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Crowder, Petra (Ruislip—Northwood)
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Nairn, D. L. S.


Dance, J. C. G.
Hyde, Montgomery
Neave, Airey


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Nicholls, Harmar


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Iremonger, T. L.
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Doughty, C. J. A.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Drayson, G. B.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


du Cann, E. D. L.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Page, R. G.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Duthie, W. S.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Partridge, E.




Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
Vane, W. M. F.


Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Pitman, I. J.
Stevens, Geoffrey
Vickers, Miss J. H.


Pott, H. P.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Vosper, D. F.


Powell, J. Enoch
Stewart, Henderson, (Fife, E.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Raikes, Sir Victor
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Rawlinson, Peter
Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)
Wall, Major Patrick


Redmayne, M.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Teeing, W.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Remnant, Hon. P.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Renton, D. L. M.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Webbe, Sir H.


Ridsdale, J. E.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrth &amp; Border)


Roper, Sir Harold
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Russell, R. S.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
Wood, Hon. R.


Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Touche, Sir Gordon



Spearman, A. C. M.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Speir, R. M.
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Mr. Wills and Mr. Legh.




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Owen, W. J.


Albu, A. H.
Hamilton, W. W.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Hannan, W.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Anderson, Frank
Hastings, S.
Pargiter, G. A.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hayman, F. H.
Parker, J.


Bartley, P.
Herbison, Miss M.
Paton, J.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hobson, C. R.
Pearson, A.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Holman, P.
Peart, T. F.


Benson, G.
Houghton, Douglas
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Beswick, F.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Blackburn, F.
Hubbard, T. F.
Probert, A. R.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Proctor, W. T.


Blyton, W. R.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Randall, H. E.


Boardman, H.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rankin, John


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hunter, A. E.
Reeves, J.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Reid, William


Boyd, T. C.
Irving, S. (Dartford)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Brockway, A. F.
Janner, B.
Ross, William


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St. Pancs, S.)
Short, E. W.


Burke, W. A.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Kenyon, C.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Callaghan, L. J.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Skeffington, A. M.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Champion, A. J.
Lewis, Arthur
Sparks, J. A.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Lindgren, G. S.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Logan, D. G.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Cove, W. G.
MacColl, J. E.
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
McGhee, H. G.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Cronin, J. D.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Sylvester, G. O.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
McLeavy, Frank
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thornton, E.


Deer, G.
Mahon, Simon
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Dodds, N. N.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Warbey, W. N.


Donnelly, D. L.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Weitzman, D.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mason, Roy
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mellish, R. J.
West, D. G.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Messer, Sir F.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mitchison, G. R.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Fernyhough, E.
Monslow, W.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Moody, A. S.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Gibson, C. W.
Moss, R.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Moyle, A.
Woof, R. E.


Greenwood, Anthony
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Oliver, G. H.
Zilliacus, K.


Grey, C. F.
Oram, A. E.



Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Orbach, M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Oswald, T.
Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Rogers

Clause 2.—(DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY THROUGH COMPANIES THE SECURITIES OF WHICK ARE SOLD.)

Mr. Watkinson: I beg to move, in page 4, line 7, at the end to insert:
The Commission shall include in their annual report under subsection (7) of section four of the Transport Act, 1947, particulars of any exercise by the Minister of his powers under the provisio to this subsection which takes place during the year.
In Committee, the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) himself, I think, moved an Amendment to provide that the exercise of the Minister's power to consent or to revoke his consent should be by Statutory Instrument. I said at the time that I was unable to accept the Amendment in the terms in which the Opposition had put it down, but I offered to consider, on Report, inserting an Amendment requiring the Commission to include in its annual report a clear statement of such consents or revocations. It was to honour that proposal that this Amendment was put down.
I think that this is the best way of getting a record of such consents or revocations. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, they would be debated in the House because they would appear in the Commission's annual report. As I have said, it was to fulfil that obligation that this Amendment was put down.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Sparks: I beg to move, in page 4, line 35, at the end to insert:
(7) This section and the said section five, as amended by this section, shall cease to have effect at the end of twelve months after the passing of this Act or at the end of such further period as the Minister may at any time and from time to time by order prescribe:
Provided that no such order shall be made until a draft thereof (which shall be accompanied by a report on offers and sales made under this section and under the said section five amended as aforesaid) has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolutions of each house of Parliament.
The Clause appears to be an extremely complicated one, though in substance it mainly, if not wholly, refers to the disposal of the British Road Services parcels organisation of the British Transport Commission and to the fleet of meat vehicles. The Clause as it stands places no time limit whatever upon the disposal of those two important transport organisations and, in fact, enables the two organisations to be sold off in bits and pieces over an indefinite period of time.

We believe that to be a very bad thing indeed.
The Bill enables the Minister to take steps to dispose of the two organisations, but we believe that in the interests of transport and of transport users as a whole a time limit should be placed upon this operation. In the Fifth Report of the Road Haulage Disposal Board the up-to-date position is set out in regard to the parcels and the meat vehicles. In regard to the parcels company, the Report says:
As stated in our previous report, the property of the Parcels and Smalls organisation of British Road Services was made over on 1st January, 1955, to a company known as B.R.S. (Parcels) Ltd. On the 25th October the Commission with the approval of the Board, issued a public invitation to tender for the whole of the shares of the Company (7 million shares of £1, fully paid). The invitation, which had to comply with the requirements of the Companies Act, took the form of a prospectus too lengthy to be reproduced in this report. The prospectus was inserted in seven national newspapers and was widely noticed in the Press. The closing date for tenders is 25th January, 1956.
I am not aware—I do not know whether other hon. Members are—of the results of that application, but the fact is that, despite there being a closing date, this Clause, as I understand it, enables the disposal to continue, if thought necessary, over a much longer period of time.
In regard to the meat vehicles, the Report says:
We reported previously that a large unit which contained 498 vehicles, the great bulk of the Commission's 'chartered' meat fleet, had been offered for a second time and had attracted one tender. The Commission had recommended to the Board the refusal of the tender, but the Board had not approved that recommendation and the matter had therefore been referred to the Minister on 23rd May in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 (8). The Minister's decision was given by letter dated 2nd September, as follows:
'I am to refer to your letter of 7th June regarding a disagreement between the Road Haulage Disposal Board and the Commission as to the acceptance of a tender for the Large Meat Unit No. 6012. The Minister has carefully considered the submissions put to him by the Commission and the Board and has decided that he would not be justified in directing them to accept the tender of £552,000'.
The Report goes on to say:
We have thought it advisable to defer reoffering these vehicles until the terms of the amending legislation are known."—
that is, the legislation with which we are dealing today.
In view of that complete and absolute failure to dispose of the meat fleet after two attempts to do so, I do not know what better success the Minister expects to have by continuing under this Clause to dispose of this transport unit. As I said earlier, we think that a time limit should be placed upon the disposal of these two organisations. We are suggesting in our Amendment that the time limit should be twelve months and that sales should cease twelve months from the passing of the Act. If that is not a sufficiently long time in which to dispose of these two organisations, how much longer does the right hon. Gentleman want? I should have thought that it would have been sufficient.
However, the Amendment gives the Minister an opportunity to extend that period if he thinks fit. If he decides to do that, we ask him to take power to do it by a Statutory Order laid before the House, so that we may know the circumstances under which he exercises his powers to extend the time beyond twelve months.
I would only add that the terminal date should be inserted in the Bill so that the British Transport Commission, and those using the transport services of the parcels company and the meat fleet, should know with whom they are dealing. They should not be faced with a period of years during which they will not know to whom the concern belongs. Therefore it is in the general interest of all concerned that a time limit shall be placed upon this proposed transaction. In that way the matter will be settled, and everyone will know from a certain date where they stand. They can then carry on with some degree of confidence in the knowledge that this controversy, which has gone on for a long time, has at last been finally settled.
That will not be the case unless the Amendment is accepted, and the tail end of a very sad story will continue for years. We feel that the time has come to call a halt and I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will accept this reasonable Amendment, which I commend to the House.

Mr. Mellish: I beg to second the Amendment.
When an Amendment on similar lines was moved in Committee the Minister said that it would wreck the Bill. With great respect, I would point out that the present position is wrecking the future prospects of British Road Services.
British Road Services have a right to know when this sordid and sorry tale of transport is to be ended. This shocking business has gone on for far too long. I think it can, be fairly said by hon. Members of all parties that British Road Services has done a good job of work under the circumstances, but this matter has been in the political cockpit for a long time now. I know, having spoken to people employed by British Road Services—welfare officers, drivers' mates and maintenance men—that they still do not know for certain what is to be the future of the industry.
The trade union movement is worried and unhappy. We know that the Bill represents a somersault in Government policy. We know that the Minister is on record as saying that he wants to see interference with road transport ended soon. He said something to that effect in Committee, and I hope he will repeat it during the Third Reading debate—

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): indicated assent.

Mr. Mellish: I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman nod his agreement.
If that is the policy of the Minister of Transport he ought not to be bothered about the opposition of one or two unimportant back benchers. The traders of this country are the most important people. They demanded a first-class trunk service, which, for the first time in the history of Britain, they have had. They now have interlocking services and first-class maintenance depots. When drivers begin trunk journeys, they know that they will have somewhere decent to sleep, unlike the position in the old days. So we have reached a state where our trunk services are better than ever before.
No one can deny that, unless he has a private vested interest in the industry. We are asking no more and no less than that a time limit shall be imposed so that the British Transport Commission can know that on and after a certain date it will not be hounded any more. Imagine the


position of the owner of an industry, who does not know when it is likely to be sold. The Tory Party has always said that incentive is necessary. Should not British Road Services be given an incentive? What incentive is there to a man to improve his industry when he does not know when it is likely to be sold? Indeed, if this industry is made more efficient, there is more likelihood that it will be sold. Therefore let us put an end to this sorry story and impose a final date.
I realise that I am wasting my time in speaking, so far as the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is concerned. So I appeal to other hon. Gentlemen. This is the British Transport Commission. This is British Road Services. I am one of those who think that it is a fine thing to have such a national undertaking. I am proud to think that one day we shall take this matter out of the cockpit of party politics.
I repeat what I said in Committee, when I pointed out where the Conservative party went wrong in 1953. I understand the basic objection of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to the principle of nationalisation. However, they should have determined, as the result of a probe into the industry, to show how it could be made more efficient. If they had done that, they could have bragged at the next General Election that the Conservative Party had made British Road Services more efficient than ever before.
What did they do? They came to power and brought forward legislation which attempted to destroy the transport industry. That is why this Bill had to come into being. We are asking for the sorry story to be ended by giving the British Transport Commission a definite date. Even at this late stage we ask the Minister to agree that twelve months is a reasonable time in which the British Transport Commission will know that the attacks of its opponents will cease.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I trust sincerely that the Government will not accept the Amendment. I noticed, in the Committee stage, that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary properly referred to the necessity for speed in the disposal of the remaining vehicles. I quote his words. He said:

We are not able to say exactly how many vehicles are still to be sold. There will, however, shortly be published an additional list.
Later, he said:
Section 1 of the Transport Act, 1953, will continue to apply even after this Bill is on the Statute Book … We do not intend that as a result of the passing of the Bill there shall be any slowing down in the disposal of the vehicles which remain in the hands of British Road Services."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 6th March, 1956; c. 44–45.]
That is as sufficient a guarantee in this matter as the Opposition could expect. It is of the utmost importance when we come to the future sales—I say nothing of the past—that those sales should be as speedy as possible, and that there should be proper consultation with the interests concerned. In the case of these disposals, to which objection is apparently taken because the Opposition desires a time limit, it is important that they should be in reasonable lots and, in particular, that they should be properly classified. This will ensure that the large vehicles, the six and eight-wheelers, which remain to be disposed of, are sold in one reasonable lot, and that will encourage the sale of the smaller and older vehicles in other reasonable lots. As I see it, that will lead to the rapid disposal and dispersal of the remaining assets which require to be disposed of.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: It appears to me that the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) has not read the Amendment. In it we are talking about the disposal not of ordinary lorries but of the parcel service and the meat service. The hon. Gentleman appears to be directing his arguments to something quite different.

Mr. Rees-Davies: As I read it, the Amendment covers not only the meat service and the parcel service but other services.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Only when they are formed into companies.

Mr. Rees-Davies: In the case of the disposal of the companies, the vehicles are not all of one type or class. We are dealing with a sale, whether one disposes of the company as a whole or whether one does not wish to dispose of it as a whole. While it is important that the principle of speed should apply in this matter, it is also necessary to ascertain the best method of sale to be adopted.


It seems to me there is no need for the Amendment, in the light of the assurance given by the Minister during the Committee stage on an Amendment which, although not identical with the present one, was along very similar lines.

Mr. Mellish: We do not quarrel too much with the present Minister because we have some confidence in him. The trouble is that we do not know how long he will hold his present office. Does the hon. Member think we should wait until all the assets are sold? Ought there not to be an end? If so, what should be the time factor?

Mr. Rees-Davies: There is one obvious factor, and that is the 1953 Act, which determines the whole matter. We are only in the early part of 1956 and we have another Bill. There is abundant time in which any further arrangements may be made. Transport Bills are becoming almost an everyday hobby of the House. I am delighted to find that the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) shares the confidence that I and my hon. Friends have in the Minister.

Mr. Mellish: The trouble is that the present Minister will not hold his office long. He will be sacked.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Having heard what has been said on both sides of the House, I have no doubt that we shall have a long, happy and glorious life with the present Minister. I trust that the Government will stand firm in opposing the Amendment.

Mr. Molson: I am, naturally, familiar with the point raised in the Standing Committee by the Opposition, who wished to have some assurance that a time will come when the proposed disposals under the Bill will be terminated. In Standing Committee I had to say that I was not able to advise the Committee to accept the Opposition Amendment, and I could not, for two entirely different reasons, advise the House to accept the present Amendment.
I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) for recalling what I said in Standing Committee, that it was not the Government's intention that these matters should drag on indefinitely. We are not in a position to mention a date by which

the disposal of vehicles and property by the Commission will be terminated because it is obvious that we shall have to see how the sales go. However, I said on behalf of my right hon. Friend—I have his permission to repeat the assurance—that he wishes to see the sales brought to an end as soon as it is reasonably possible.
The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) was in some degree right in what he said about bringing to an end the possibility of the sale of the two companies dealing with meat and parcels which are likely to be formed. After listening to the hon. Member's speech, I have no doubt that what he really intended by the Amendment was that after the lapse of twelve months it should no longer be an obligation for the meat fleet and parcel fleet to be sold but that they should be retained by the Commission.
That would not be the effect of the hon. Member's Amendment. It provides that Clause 2, which amends Section 5 of the 1953 Act, would cease to operate after the twelve months. If it does not operate, Section 5 of the 1953 Act will come back into operation. If an order were not made, vehicles and other property in the companies could not be sold in companies but would have to be sold in transport units under Section 3 of the 1953 Act or as chattels without the right to special A licences under Section 6 of that Act.
I have indicated that even if the Amendment gave effect to the intention very clearly explained by the hon. Member for Acton, the Government would not be able to accept it. However, it would not have the effect that he intends. It would merely mean that the 1953 Act would come back into operation in its full rigour. For that reason, I hope that the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Sparks: Surely, if the hon. Gentleman otherwise agrees with the principle of the Amendment, the Government could rectify the weakness if they so thought fit.

Mr. Molson: I indicated that even if the Amendment had the effect which the hon. Gentleman intended we should not be prepared to accept it. The reason is that under the Bill, as hon. Members opposite have taken great pleasure in pointing out, we have made a substantial amendment


of the general policy laid down in the 1953 Act. We have agreed that the trunk services should continue permanently to be nationalised. As at present advised, we are not prepared to agree that the parcels company and the meat company, when formed, should necessarily remain permanently nationalised. We are prepared to continue to attempt to sell them to private investors. We have made it plain that we think that two or three years of successful operation and publication of balance sheets is a necessary preliminary to a successful sale of that kind. Therefore, we should not be prepared to agree to an Amendment, even if it were aptly drafted, for the purpose of terminating the experiment at the end of twelve months.

Mr. Mellish: Surely the hon. Gentleman is saying that the harder these people work and the more profit they make in nationalised industry the more likely they are to be sold out to competitors. What sort of policy is that?

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Molson: I can give those who are employed in these companies the absolute assurance that they can go on for a few years under the ownership of the British Transport Commission. At the end of that time, if these companies are successfully sold, there is not the slightest reason why the terms of service of those employed in the parcels company or the meat company should in any way deteriorate. It does not normally affect the conditions of employment of people in a company if the shares are sold by one company to another.

Mr. Mellish: Surely that argument is fallacious, because the whole point is that this was a vast undertaking and because of that did a grand job of work for the consumer. Now that it is to be sold, it cannot give the people who are employed in the industry the same conditions as they hitherto enjoyed. Therefore, that is a false promise, and the hon. Gentleman knows that it is false.

Mr. Molson: I have not made, and have no intention of making, any such false promise. I am authorised by my right hon. Friend to say that before he agreed to a sale he would have to be satisfied that the conditions would; be reasonable for those employed in these

two companies. I have made plain in Standing Committee, without giving any commitment for the future if any unforeseen circumstances arise, that we have at present no intention of breaking up the parcels service. It is not given to us to look into the distant future, but I feel that there is no reason why any of those employed by the parcels company should feel any apprehension about the future.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: We, of course, accept the fact stated to us by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that the wording of the Amendment would not carry out the intention which we have in mind. That is one of the difficulties which always arises for the Opposition, which has not the technical help that the Government have in drafting Amendments. Our intention, however, is perfectly clear, but the hon. Gentleman has told us that if our intention had been expressed fully in the Amendment the Government disagree with it and would not have accepted it. We much regret that.
We appreciate that the Government are in a difficulty. The Minister said in. Committee, and we have to accept the force of the argument, that if we said that the parcels and meat companies had to be sold at the end of the year and there was no possible extension of that period it might be that someone would be able to buy the services much cheaper than they ought to be able to, because it would be a forced sale. There is strength in that argument, but we thought that in our Amendment today we had overcome that difficulty.
The Amendment differs from that which we moved in Committee, as we now suggest that while the Minister should be under an obligation to sell the companies within a year, he should also have power to postpone that date for a special reason, while keeping the matter under complete Parliamentary control, which is what we want. If the Minister felt that he could not sell the services at the end of the year and required another year or two, he could bring the matter before the House and we could discuss it, and that is what we are asking for in the Amendment.
It must be admitted by the House that uncertainty for these companies is extraordinarily bad. It is bad for everybody concerned. It is bad for the workers in


the companies and bad for the Commission as a whole. Organisational problems arise about who is to be moved into or out of the companies, and the whole atmosphere becomes poisoned and morale gets lower year after year, with nobody knowing whether the companies are to continue under some form of public jurisdiction or are to be sold to private enterprise.
We therefore press upon the Government the desirability of making an end of such uncertainty, and we ask them to take this matter into their own hands. There should be an end to the uncertainty as soon as possible, for the sake of the efficiency of the companies themselves. That is the point which we have raised. It is not so much a political point, because politically we do not want these undertakings sold at all. We think it entirely contrary to the national interest that they should be sold; but we say that if the Government are going to sell them there should be the minimum of uncertainty about it. Although this is a matter of detail it is one of great importance. We hope that even now the Government might, after further consideration, accept our proposal. If not, we would ask the House to divide on it.

Mr. Watkinson: The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) has made a very clear point. We want to try to meet it as far as we can, particularly in respect of the point made by the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) about the uncertainty for the people who work in this great industry. It is something of which I take great account but, as the right hon. Member for Vauxhall said, we cannot allow ourselves to be put in a position in which we have a forced sale, because in any kind of forced sale we should never get the proper terms and conditions.
I follow the right hon. Member's point about coming back to the House and asking for an extension of the twelve months' period. I cannot accept that, for the reason that while I attach great importance to continuity, it must be continuity with, as far as possible, political heat and argument removed from it. If I came to the House asking for an extension, the Opposition, quite rightly, would ask me to give the reasons. It would be open to the Opposition to make

any searching inquiry they wished into the merits of the would-be purchaser.
I want to say with all the force that I can command that, whilst we cannot accept the Amendment, we do attach the greatest importance to trying to give these companies and the people who work in them a fair deal. That is why I would reinforce what my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said—that I am not prepared to sell the companies to any bidder and I intend to run them for a term of years so that they may have at least some continuity for the future. As I said in Committee, if the Disposal Board goes, as well it may, I propose to have some other body to whom I can refer and whose advice I can take in the national interest when the time comes to dispose of the companies.

Mr. Mellish: I accept the Minister's personal assurances, but there is nothing written in the Bill. I am not being facetious about this, but what guarantee have we that the right hon. Gentleman's term of office might not be limited? We do not know, and we might have another Minister who did not agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Watkinson: That is a perfectly fair point, but one which I cannot meet. I can see no way of writing safeguards into the Bill. I can well understand that this may not be sufficient for hon. and right hon. Members opposite, but I want to put on record as plainly as I can what I intend to do. If they think that that is not sufficiently binding for the future, I cannot help that.
I have said that I do not intend to throw these companies away. They will have at least some years' continuity, because I am sure that that is in the national interest. I intend, in the national interest, to arm myself or my successors with some kind of independent advice, if and when the time comes to sell the companies, so that the interests of those working in the companies may be safeguarded, and so that we may make sure that a proper price for them is secured. I am sorry that, after very careful thought and after taking the best advice, I cannot go further than that. I hope, therefore, that on those grounds the right hon. Gentleman may feel disposed not to press this Amendment.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 153, Noes 209.

Division No. 144.]
AYES
[5.40 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Hamilton, W. W.
Pargiter, G. A.


Albu, A. H.
Hannan, W.
Parker, J.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Hastings, S.
Paton, J.


Anderson, Frank
Hayman, F. H.
Peart, T. F.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Herbison, Miss M.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Bartley, P.
Hobson, C. R.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Holman, P.



Benson, G.
Houghton, Douglas
Probert, A. R.


Beswick, F.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Proctor, W. T.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Randall, H. E.


Blackburn, F.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Redhead, E. C.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Reeves, J.


Blyton, W. R.
Hunter, A. E.
Reid, William


Boardman, H.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Boyd, T. C.
Janner, B.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Ross, William


Brockway, A. F.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St. Pncs, S.)



Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Burke, W. A.
Kenyon, C.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Skeffington, A. M.


Callaghan, L. J.
Lewis, Arthur
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Lindgren, G. S.
Sparks, J. A.


Champion, A. J.
Logan, D. G.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Chetwynd, G. R.
MacColl, J. E.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. (Ipswich)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
McGhee, H. G.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Cove, W. G.
McLeavy, Frank
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Cronin, J. D.
Mahon, Simon
Sylvester, G. O.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Hudderstd, E.)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Deer, G.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Thornton, E.


Delargy, H. J.
Mason, Roy
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Dodds, N. N.
Mellish, R. J.
Warbey, W. N.


Donnelly, D. L.
Messer, Sir F.
Weitzman, D.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Michlson, G. R.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Monslow, W.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Moody, A. S.
West, D. C.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Moss, R.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Moyle, A.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Fernyhough, E.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Gibson, C. W.

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Oram, A. E.
Woof, R. E.


Greenwood, Anthony
Orbach, M.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Oswald, T.
Zilliacus, K.


Grey, C. F.
Owen, W. J.



Griffiths, David (Bother Valley)
Padley, W. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Mr. Short and Mr. Pearson.


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Palmer, A. M. F.





NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Body, R. F.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)


Aitken, W. T.
Boothby, Sir Robert
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Crouch, R. F.


Arbuthnot, John
Braine, B. R.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)


Armstrong, C. W.
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Dance, J. C. G.


Atkins, H. E.
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Deedes, W. F.


Baldwin, A. E.
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Balniel, Lord
Bryan, P.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.


Barlow, Sir John
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Doughty, C. J. A.


Barter, John
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Drayson, G. B.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Burden, F. F. A.
du Cann, E. D. L.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Warwick &amp; L'm'tn)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Channon, H.
Errington, Sir Eric


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Farey-Jones, F. W.


Bidgood, J. C.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Fell, A.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Cole, Norman
Finlay, Graeme


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Fisher, Nigel


Bishop, F. P.
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Black, C. W.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)




Freeth, D. K.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Renton, D. L. M.


Gibson-Watt, D.
Leavey, J. A.
Ridsdale, J. E.


Glover, D.
Leburn, W. G.
Roper, Sir Harold


Godber, J. B.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Russell, R. S.


Gower, H. R.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Graham, Sir Fergus
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Shepherd, William


Green, A.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Spier, R. M.


Gurden, Harold
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Stevens, Geoffrey


Harris, Reader (Heston)
McKibbin, A. J.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Maddan, Martin
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Teeling, W.


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Marples, A. E.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Marshall, Douglas
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Mathew, R.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Horobin, Sir Ian
Maude, Angus
Touche, Sir Gordon


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Mawby, R. L.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Howard, John (Test)
Molson, A. H. E.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Moore, Sir Thomas
Vane, W. M. F.


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Nairn, D. L. S.
Vickers, Miss J. H.


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Neave, Airey
Vosper, D. F.


Hyde, Montgomery
Nicholls, Harmar
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Iremonger, T. L.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Wall, Major Patrick


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)



Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Page, R. G.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pannell, N. A. (Krikdale)
Webbe, Sir H.


Joseph, Sir Keith
Partridge, E.
Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith &amp; Border)


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Keegan, D.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Pott, H. P.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Kerr, H. W.
Powell, J. Enoch
Wood, Hon. R.


Kershaw, J. A.
Raikes, Sir Victor
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Kimball, M.
Rawlinson, Peter



Lambert, Hon. G.
Redmayne, M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lambton, Viscount
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Mr. Wills and Mr. Legh.


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Remnant, Hon. P.

Clause 3.—(SPECIAL PROVISIONS AS TO VEHICLES USED EXCLUSIVELY FOR PARTICULAR CONTRACTS.)

Mr. Pargiter: I beg to move, in page 6, line 19, to leave out from "be" to the end of line 23 and insert:
retained by the Commission or by a company under their direct or indirect control for the purpose of performing contracts made or to be made for the carriage of goods in vehicles of the Commission or of such a company as aforesaid for or in connection with the trade or business of the other party to each contract during a continuous period of not less than one year or so retained in order to be available for the said purpose:
Provided that nothing in this subsection shall restrict the transfer of such vehicles as aforesaid between the Commission and any such company or between any such companies".
The Amendment is designed to extract from the Minister a statement of what he intends to do in fulfilment of the promise

which was made during the Committee stage that he would do something in this matter if it were at all possible. I need not burden the House with all the arguments; the salient point is that we are concerned at the fact that the Clause, as at present drawn, means that when the Commission finishes a certain contract—even if it were going to renew it at a later date—it has to dispose of all the vehicles used in that contract.
Equally, it would not be possible for it to have a reserve pool of vehicles which it could use in order to meet abnormal seasonal demands. It would be tied absolutely to the number of vehicles used for the contract and, in order to meet the problem of seasonal demands from the companies with which it was operating, would be obliged to hold extra vehicles, which would mean that it would lose the flexibility which it now enjoys.
The Minister was good enough to say that the Government had no intention of hampering the Commission in its operation of these contract vehicles, within the limits of the Bill. We are asking what has been done to ensure that vehicles which become free at the end of the contract can be used for any new contract which may become available or, alternatively, to what extent the Commission will be able to operate the additional vehicles which it holds at present in the same flexible manner as it now does.
The Minister has said that he wants these vehicles to operate in the most effective manner. In other words, he wants to see the minimum number of vehicles doing the maximum amount of work, whether for private enterprise or for the Commission, and whether or not they operate under contract licences; and also to see that, having undertaken a contract to give a service, the Commission shall be able to give it without being hamstrung at any point. If the Minister is prepared to say that he has examined this matter, and that the Government are prepared, at some stage, to make the necessary Amendment, so that the Commission will not be tied definitely to selling vehicles immediately upon the termination of a contract, or, alternatively, will not be obliged to dispose of them to a company, we shall be satisfied.
I accept the fact that if they were handed to a company in which the Commission was either directly or indirectly interested, they would be regarded as having been disposed of and, consequently, the company would be quite free to operate and retain them and would not be obliged to sell them, as was contemplated in the case of the Commission. We are not asking that the Transport Commission should have any ad lib authority to do exactly as it pleases in this matter, but we think that some flexibility should be permitted within the limits of the number of vehicles which it now has engaged in contract work, and that it should be permitted to retain sufficient vehicles to carry out effectively the operation of this part of its undertaking.

Mr. Mellish: I beg to second the Amendment.
As I said during the Committee stage, when talking of contract vehicles we must remember the early history of transport. It was the type of vehicles used for contract work and the manner in which they were obtained which brought into being the A, B and C licensing system. Governments in those early days—both Conservative and Labour—recognised that because of the way in which the transport industry was being run some measure of control was necessary. It was to knock out the odd man, doing the odd job under almost any conditions, that the licensing system was introduced.
One of the features of the work of British Road Services which has not been clearly understood by some hon. Members is that its contract services have become better each year. Many large firms which today hire vehicles from B.R.S. have their names on the vehicles. This service does a very fine job. Indeed, those of us who are interested in transport know that many hirers were very concerned and worried about the possibility of the whole structure of transport being destroyed by the 1953 Act. The Amendment is designed to ensure that the Commission is not placed in an impossible and false position.
As the Bill stands, when a contract ends all the vehicles which have been engaged in it are delicensed and are not available to B.R.S. for any new contract work. We do not ask for a huge general pool, but we think that some latitude ought to be allowed to the Commission and that it should be able, at the end of a contract, to transfer the vehicles which have been engaged in it to a new contract, or to supplement the number of vehicles engaged in an existing contract, or to general transport work. We think that there should be a little give and take here. We mentioned this matter in Committee, and I believe that the Minister was sympathetic and wanted to help. This is something which we regard as being necessary in order to enable British Road Services to continue to do the fine job of work which it is doing at present.

Mr. Watkinson: The hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) and the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) are quite right; I did undertake to look at this matter again. During the Committee stage the hon. Member for


Southall and others set out quite clearly the facts as they saw them. I have looked at those facts very carefully, purely from a practical point of view, and the best thing I can do is to tell hon. Members exactly what was the position I found when I did so. It may then be seen that there is not a very great issue here.
First, there is the argument that these vehicles would be useful for another type of contract. I am advised that, very often, the contract itself stipulates a certain type of vehicle or body, and that many of these vehicles could not be so transferred, and would merely have to go into the general service part of the fleet. I have asked the Commission for its estimate of the number of vehicles it would require, and it has no reason to give a low figure. It says that not more than half the vehicles could be used again under any circumstances. I think that the proportion is possibly less than that, but the Commission itself says that it would certainly not be more than half. It is quite sensible to assume that most vehicles would not really be required again for a new contract. In addition, many customers quite rightly specify new vehicles at the start of a new contract.
That is the answer to those who say that we shall be seriously hampering the Commission in its contract service if we insist upon this provision. I certainly do not want to do that, and have no intention of doing so, but as far as I can ascertain—and as I have been advised—the selling of these vehicles will not hamper the Commission carrying out its contract hire work. It is certainly my wish to provide that the Commission can do so, but it must be under a proper competitive system.
6.0 p.m.
The other point was whether it was right to sell these vehicles as chattels or whether they should be sold with the right to a special A licence. Possibly we are not in disagreement here. If the vehicles were sold with the right to a special A licence that could be used for any kind of haulage work, that would increase, I think unnecessarily, the total number of vehicles so licensed.
The total number of vehicles we are discussing is not the number that might fall to be sold but that which is likely to

be used for contract work, and it is about 1,000 or 1,500. I think that the British Transport Commission is confident that it will retain the vast majority of its contracts, or about two-thirds or three-quarters of them. Good luck to it if it can.
The third point is that of those the Commission does not retain, about 50 per cent. of the lorries will not be of further use to the Commission for contract work, because of the stipulations which customers normally lay down. It was for these reasons that I felt that there was no great issue here and that, therefore, we should be right to leave matters as they stand.
I hope that after that explanation hon. Gentlemen opposite will not press the Amendment. If I had felt that the present position would seriously hamper the Commission, I would have proposed to make a further Amendment on another occasion.

Mr. Pargiter: What is the position for the future? The Commission has a certain limited number of vehicles that it can switch over for breakdown work or for sudden rushes, seasonal demands, and occasions of that kind. Does the Minister say that the Transport Commission will be able to retain vehicles for that purpose?

Mr. Watkinson: I looked into that point—there is no issue here, and I want to give all the facts—and I am advised that there are only about 500 vehicles awaiting sale as chattels and that they are not float vehicles surplus to requirements. I give this undertaking. I think the point on retention is made. If I am satisfied that the Commission needs a certain float of vehicles to carry out properly its contract hire work and that the Bill bars it from keeping that float, which is a proper commercial thing to do, I will introduce an appropriate Amendment in another place to deal with the point, which is a separate point from the one which we have been discussing.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The Minister has made as plausible a case as he could, but it is necessary to look at the background of this matter of contract vehicles. We discussed it in Committee but the Bill remains, in our view, unfair to the Commission.
Under the 1953 Act, the Commission had to dispose of its contract vehicles in the same way as of other vehicles, and an agreement was made whereby, if the Commission was successful in renewing a contract with a company for which it had already been carrying goods, it would still have to sell the vehicles it was using for that contract and would have to buy further vehicles. That was a most ridiculous situation. The Commission was able to carry goods in vehicles with bodies specially constructed for the specific purpose of a company, but on renewal of contract had to sell those vehicles and buy new ones.
The Government finally realised, no doubt at the instigation of the Commission, the absurdity of that position and so provision is made in the Bill for retention by the Commission of contract vehicles where contracts are renewed. That is a step in the right direction. It removes the anomaly of the ridiculous manner of dealing with contract vehicles. Where we disagree with the Government over this matter is that we think the Bill does not go far enough. The position still remains that if the Commission does not renew a contract it will have to sell the vehicles.
We suggested in Committee, and hon. Members on both sides agreed, that it seemed unnecessary for the Commission to be compelled to dispose of its contract vehicles where, although it had not renewed a particular contract, it had been able to obtain a further contract from a different firm; in other words that it would be far better for the Commission to retain the contract vehicles and transfer them to other contract work. As the Minister has stated, it was agreed in Committee that the matter would be looked into further but that position was arrived at only after considerable argument and after the Opposition had succeeded in convincing the Committee that there was something in the case that they were making.
In Committee, I stated the position thus:
All we are asking is that the Commission shall not be compelled to sell the vehicles when the contracts are not renewed. The Commission should be able to transfer the vehicles to other contracts or keep them in reserve. If such an undertaking will be considered, I would wish to ask how to withdraw the Amendment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 13th March, 1956; c. 141.]

We withdrew the Amendment on the undertaking of the Parliamentary Secretary that he would look into the point, but without committing himself in case it proved impossible to carry it out.
What the Minister has said this afternoon does not show that the point is impracticable or that these words are of sufficient significance or importance to be allowed to remain in the Bill. As far as I understand the figures there are about 1,000 or 1,500 contract vehicles to be dealt with and that probably two-thirds of them will be required to continue contracts. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary's estimate is right. It is certainly a tribute to the Commission that two-thirds of its present contracts will be renewed by private enterprise firms and that the Commission will carry their goods exclusively. If two-thirds are renewed, that leaves 500 vehicles to be dealt with.
According to the Clause, those 500 vehicles will be disposed of as chattels by the Commission. It may be that some are not suitable for the contracts, but as the Commission does a large amount of bodywork I do not see why it should not be able to change those vehicle bodies to make them suitable for specific contracts. Some of my hon. Friends and I have visited depôts dealing with contract work in South London, and we saw the very large amount of bodywork being done there; and done extremely well, too. If only half those vehicles are suitable for further contract work that makes the figure 250.
May I remind the Minister that earlier today we were debating a question concerning 582 vehicles which are not to be permitted to have the special A licence, and that the Government thought it of sufficient importance to introduce an Amendment on the Committee stage to deprive the Commission of the A licence for those 582 vehicles? We think it is of sufficient importance to preserve the right of the Commission over these 250 or 500 vehicles, whichever might be the amount, and to move the Amendment and, I am afraid from the Government point of view, to press it. As a matter of principle we consider that if the Commission has proved itself successful, as it has, with its contract work, then if it is able to get further contracts, it should be able to use those vehicles which it now


possesses which are suitable for further contract work. I would have thought that was reasonable and logical and would appeal to every Member of the House as being good business.

Mr. Nabarro: What sort of business?

Mr. Davies: The hon. Member does not understand what is or is not good business according to the standards we use in discussing the matter in this House.

Mr. Nabarro: I have been at it for many years now.

Mr. Davies: Although the Minister has tried to show that the matter is not of sufficient importance to call for a Division, suggesting that he will give further consideration to one point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter), I do not think that he has gone sufficiently far, after having ample opportunity between Committee and Report stage, on the basis of the discussions held and the undertaking given. I will, therefore, advise my hon. Friends to divide on this Amendment.

Mr. Norman Cole: During the Committee stage, when we were discussing a similar Amendment, a great deal of the argument was based upon the fear that this was something which was going back on the total number of vehicles the Commission would hold. I have listened with interest today to the discussion on this Amendment. I have noticed that throughout the course of that discussion this point did not arise until the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) aligned 250 vehicles in this Amendment with the 500 mentioned under the three-fortieths figure, which was dealt with under an earlier Amendment.
I am bound to say that the hon. Member for Enfield, East, in putting those two figures together and trying to prove the importance of these 250 vehicles, relating them to the 500, has shown that it is a fair supposition that the 250 figure is only another means of adding to the total number of vehicles which the Commission will be allowed to keep under the Bill.

Mr. Pargiter: Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that these are only available and supposed to be used for contract purposes, not general haulage.

Mr. Cole: I am well aware that they are supposed to be used for that.

Mr. Pargiter: That is what they must be used for.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Cole: But also, as far as I am aware, there is nothing to stop the Commission from using some of their general service vehicles and appropriating them to its contracts, if they obtain contracts. It will therefore, I think, be agreed that the 250 is an increase in the total number of vehicles at the disposal of the Commission.

Mr. Ernest Davies: If the vehicles are transferred from general haulage to contract, they cannot be doing general haulage work at the same time.

Mr. Cole: That is quite obvious, but the point I am making is this. If the Commission is so successful with its contracts—and we are glad that it appears to be—if it has a pool of additional vehicles which would remain if this Amendment were passed, it then would not require to subtract from its number of general service vehicles to meet any contract it would obtain in the future. With all the good will in the world, I am bound to say that, although the point did not arise earlier in this debate, it is just one of the many similar Amendments we had in Committee—and there are more down on the Order Paper today—to get round the total number which is laid down in Clause 1.

Mr. Mellish: What is so wrong in having a small, general pool of contract vehicles? If the Commission has not got the contract vehicles, it has to go through all the procedure of applying for relicensing; and that would be senseless.

Mr. Cole: If the hon. Member would wait, I was going on to discuss the merits of the case on contract vehicles alone.
I would not have thought it was very businesslike for the B.T.C. or any other haulier carrying on business to keep 250 vehicles against the wall—for that is what it will amount to—in case a contract might arise in the near or distant future, especially since many of those contracts would need vehicles of a special type, as my right hon. Friend mentioned.
I am not at all certain that it is good business, or likely to be profitable, to


have anything like 250 or 500 vehicles kept in hand in a pool, as one presumes they would be, against a possible future contract not yet obtained. We in this House try to enable the Commission to do its work in a businesslike way and make profits. If these vehicles are to be kept against a possible future event, and not in daily profitable use, then I would suggest the B.T.C. are not doing the wisest thing.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman consider it is good business, as the Clause now stands? If the Commission loses one contract but obtains another at the same time and is waiting for vehicles, it would not be allowed to transfer those vehicles. A contract is lost; a new contract is obtained at the same time, but the vehicles cannot be put to that use.

Mr. Cole: The hon. Gentleman is taking a specific point.

Mr. Davies: That is the whole point.

Mr. Cole: The purpose of this Amendment is to give power to the Commission to maintain a pool of vehicles. We have heard several times this afternoon that a number of vehicles put to contract work are specially built, and on occasions the contractor insists on a new vehicle. The Commission itself, as mentioned by my right hon. Friend, said that not more than half these vehicles would be available for new contracts. The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) cannot make too much of that point.
We on this side of the House are concerned particularly about the inevitable potentialities for monopoly in the Transport Commission because of the number of vehicles it will have under its charge as a whole. I for one—and many of my hon. Friends, I believe, agree—am not anxious that this potential or actual monopoly power should be increased in the realm of contract business. Any organisation which has 250 or 500 vehicles at its disposal to put into any contract has, by that fact, an advantage over anyone else tendering for the same contract.
I want to ensure that all hauliers, B.T.C. or private, shall have the same kind of facilities when tendering for a

contract, allowing no one special facilities because he has special vehicles waiting and ready for such use.
For those reasons, I hope that the House will not accept this Amendment but will reject it as it has those other Amendments designed to increase the number of vehicles retained by the Commission.

Mr. W. T. Proctor: I hope that the Minister will give careful consideration to this matter and not dismiss it as of little importance. The workers in the nationalised transport industry are watching what is happening. It seems to me that those on the other side of the House are deliberately attempting to sabotage the industry and prevent it from doing its legitimate business on a basis of fair and equal competition. Was there ever anything so absolutely stupid as saying to the British Transport Commission, "You cannot use the vehicles you have got, but you must buy new ones in order to do your work?" The whole purpose of such an approach is to hamstring the Commission, prevent it from getting new contracts and to give an advantage to the friends of the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Railway and transport workers are watching the kind of things which are done. They are exasperated with the conduct of the Tory Party in these matters. Tomorrow, no doubt, we shall hear the Chancellor's statement. I expect he will be appealing to us to minimise our demand for new vehicles in this country, yet today the Tory Party are taking deliberate action to compel the Transport Commission to buy new vehicles when they have others already available.

Mr. Nabarro: Rubbish.

Mr. Proctor: There never was a proposal which showed so clearly the prejudice those on the other side of the House have against nationalised transport. I hope the Minister will not regard this as a simple matter, but that he will, if he cannot accept this Amendment this afternoon, give real consideration to this question before the Bill gets to another place.
Very many letters have been received by the British Transport Commission expressing appreciation of the way in which it has carried out its work. It


must be apparent to hon. Members opposite that the Commission can do this work more efficiently than private enterprise. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) made an extraordinary suggestion. He said that the Transport Commission should compete with private enterprise on equal terms and that the Commission should not have an advantage. Would he be prepared to agree that no private contractor should have a contract unless he used new vehicles?

That suggestion is absolute nonsense. It is an example of the way in which the Tory Party are trying to disrupt the nationalised transport of this country. They will find out that the workers are not prepared to become the victims of this inefficiency.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 205, Noes 158.

Division No. 145.]
AYES
[6.21 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Graham, Sir Fergus
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.


Aitken, W. T.
Green, A.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Alport, C. J. M.
Gresham Cooke, R.
Maddan, Martin


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Grimond, J.
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Arbuthnot, John
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Armstrong, C. W.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Atkins, H. E.
Gurden, Harold
Marples, A. E.


Balniel, Lord
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Marshall, Douglas


Barlow, Sir John
Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.
Mathew, R.


Barter, John
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maude, Angus


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Mawby, R. L.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Molson, A. H. E.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Moore, Sir Thomas


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Bevins, J. ft. (Toxteth)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Nairn, D. L. S.


Bidgood, J. C.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Neave, Airey


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Nicholls, Harmar


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Bishop, F. P.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Black, C. W.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Body, R. F.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Boothby, Sir Robert
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Page, R. G.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Horobin, Sir Ian
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Partridge, E.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Howard, John (Test)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Bryan, P.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Pitman, I. J.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Pott, H. P.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Powell, J. Enoch


Burden, F. F. A.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Raikes, Sir Victor


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hyde, Montgomery
Rawlinson, Peter


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hyton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Redmayne, M.


Channon, H.
Iremonger, T. L.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Cole, Norman
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Roper, Sir Harold


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Russell, R. S.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Joseph, Sir Keith
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Shepherd, William


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Keegan, D.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Crouch, R. F.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)




Dance, J. C. G.
Kerr, H. W.
Speir, R. M.


Deedes, W. F.
Kershaw, J. A.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kimball, M.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Doughty, C. J. A.
Lambton, Viscount
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Drayson, G. B.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


du Cann, E. D. L.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Leavey, J. A.
Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Warwick &amp; L'm'tn)
Leburn, W. G.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Errington, Sir Eric
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Teeling, W.


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Fell, A.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Finlay, Graeme
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Fisher, Nigel
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Freeth, D. K.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Gibson-Watt, D.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Touche, Sir Gordon


Glover, D.
McKibbin, A. J.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Gower, H. R.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Tweedsmuir, Lady




Vane, W. M. F.
Wall, Major Patrick
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Vickers, Miss J. H.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Wood, Hon. R.


Vosper, D. F.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Webbe, Sir H.



Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith &amp; Border)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Walker-Smith, D. C.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Colonel J. H. Harrison and




Mr. Godber.




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Albu, A. H.
Hamilton, W. W.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Hannan, W.
Pargiter, G. A.


Anderson, Frank
Hastings, S.
Paton, J.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hayman, F. H.
Pearson, A.


Bartley, P.
Healey, Denis
Peart, T. F.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Benson, G.
Herbison, Miss M.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Beswick, F.
Hobson, C. R.
Probert, A. R.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Holman, P.
Proctor, W. T.


Blackburn, F.
Houghton, Douglas
Randall, H. E.


Blenkinsop, A.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Rankin, John


Blyton, W. R.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Redhead, E. C.


Boardman, H.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Reeves, J.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hunter, A. E.
Reid, William


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Boyd, T. C.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Janner, B.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Brockway, A. F.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Ross, William


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Burke, W. A.
Kenyon, C.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Skeffington, A. M.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Callaghan, L. J.
Lewis, Arthur
Sorensen, R. W.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Lindgren, G. S.
Sparks, J. A.


Champion, A. J.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Logan, D. G.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. (Ipswich)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
MacColl, J. E.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
McGhee, H. G.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Cove, W. G.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
McLeavy, Frank
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Cronin, J. D.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Sylvester, G. O.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Mahon, Simon
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Dear, G.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Thornton, E.


Delargy, H. J.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Dodds, N. N.
Mason, Roy
Warbey, W. N.


Donnelly, D. L.
Mellish, R. J.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Messer, Sir F.
Wells, William (Wa'sall, N.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mitchison, G. R.
West, D. G.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Monslow, W.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Moody, A. S.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Moss, R.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Fernyhough, E.
Moyle, A.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Gibson, C. W.
Oliver, G. H.
Woof, R. E.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Oram, A. E.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Greenwood, Anthony
Orbach, M.
Zilliacus, K.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Oswald, T.



Grey, C. F.
Owen, W. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Padley, W. E.
Mr. Short and Mr. Simmons.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

Clause 5.—(SAFEGUARD AGAINST UNFAIR PRACTICES.)

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Watkinson: I beg to move, in page 7, line 4, to leave out Clause 5.
As will be within the recollection of many hon. Members, in Standing Committee I tabled an Amendment designed to act as a general anti-monopoly power, and also as a general power against unfair competition. I will not repeat the arguments that I used in favour of that

power, which I considered to be necessary for the Bill and for the industry.
The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) tabled certain Amendments the purpose of which was to extend the power to all sectors of the industry. I undertook to accept them, but they were not called and could not be dealt with. Since then the right hon. Gentleman has tabled a comparable Amendment to another Measure in which, I understand, it will be in order to apply


the power to both sides of the industry. I do not think we should discuss the merits of the matter, but I thought I should explain to the House why I am moving to delete Clause 5. It is that a Clause can be inserted in the Road Traffic Bill which will apply to the whole industry, and that is acceptable to me.

Mr. Nabarro: I did not have the benefit of catching your eye on Second Reading, Mr. Speaker, neither had I the opportunity to raise certain important matters associated with the withdrawal of this Clause during the Committee stage because I was not a member of the Standing Committee.
A good deal has been said since the inception of the Measure about fair and equitable competition between the publicly-owned sector—British Road Service vehicles—and the privately-owned sector—private road haulage vehicles. That is a principle which is now evidently subscribed to by both sides of the House. If there is to be a mixed economy in long-distance haulage, presumably there must be precisely equal terms accorded to both parts of the industry. I am not satisfied that even with the withdrawal of the Clause, the purpose of which, among other things, is to ensure that
… other holders of licences …
that is, other than B.R.S.—shall not be placed
… at an undue or unfair disadvantage in competing with them as respects the carriage of goods by road.
I am not satisfied that if the Clause is transplanted to the Road Traffic Bill and even augmented by the terms of what the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) proposes there will be fair and equitable competition between the two sections of the industry.
Let me say at once that I accept the fact that a part of the long-distance lorry fleet is to remain in public ownership in perpetuity. I believe that hon. Members opposite accept the fact that a large number of lorries are also to remain in private ownership in perpetuity. It is because of this duality of ownership that I now raise certain issues which I consider to be of fundamental importance.

Mr. Mellish: rose—

Mr. Nabarro: I cannot give way.

Mr. Mellish: It must be put on record that what the hon. Gentleman has said is not a correct statement. On this, I speak for myself. I should not support the principle that private enterprise should remain in perpetuity.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman is this afternoon suffering from a little more than his customary impetuosity. So far as I am aware, not even the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), representing what I consider to be the lunatic fringe of the Socialist Party, has suggested that long-distance C licence transport should be nationalised.
There is a mixed economy in road transport, and, therefore, there are four conditions which I consider must be applied both to nationalised and privately owned vehicles if there is to be fair and equitable competition. It is on these four points that I seek an assurance from my right hon. Friend, and I hope he will be specific when he replies, either to this Amendment or on Third Reading of this Bill.
The first is that British Road Services, becoming a separate and quite distinct Company and subsidiary undertaking within the Commission, shall publish separate accounts and a full annual report in regard to all its operations. The second is that this company should in all matters be subject to the provisions of the Companies Act, 1948. The third is that there should be absolute equality before the traffic courts as between British Road Services on the one hand and private haulage operators, on the other hand. I believe that my right hon. Friend will be able to give assurances on those three points.
My fourth point is much more difficult. It is that there shall be equality of terms and conditions for the subscription of capital for both Sectors. At present there cannot be fair and equitable competition between the nationalised British Road Services organisation and private hauliers when British Road Services raises its capital under Treasury guarantee. The last capital issue was part of the general issue of the Commission on the open money market but, subject to Treasury guarantee, it was issued at 101 and the guaranteed rate of interest was 4 per cent.
If a private undertaking engaged in long-distance haulage raises its money on the open market today its preference


stock will probably have to pay 6½ per cent. and its ordinary shares may pay as much as 7½–8 per cent. There is therefore, a preference accorded and recognised in present circumstances to the nationalised service amounting to 3–4 per cent. per annum on the capital. If this organisation, to be called British Road Services, or the rump of it that we have been discussing, is now to operate as a commercial undertaking—my right hon. Friend pays lip-service to that principle; hon. Gentlemen opposite talk about it running on commercial lines—it must submit to the same financial discipline as private enterprise in raising money on the free, and open market. That principle will be anathema to hon. Gentlemen opposite because they believe in State monopolies operating upon preferential terms.

Mr. Ernest Davies: There is no monopoly.

Mr. Nabarro: It was the intention of the hon. Gentleman's party when it enacted the 1947 Act to create a monopoly. The hon. Gentleman cannot deny that. It is in the terms of the 1947 Act that powers are given for British Road Services to raise capital with a Treasury guarantee and on preferential terms. As usual, the hon. Gentleman is wrong on all counts.
The principle of making a nationalised undertaking go to the money market for its financial resources is evidently not looked upon unfavourably by those persons who have carried out independent investigations into the affairs of nationalised industries. The only nationalised industry which has been subject to a septennial review by an independent body is electricity. The Herbert Committee Report published a few months ago—Command Paper 9672—has a direct bearing on what I am saying. I wish to quote something that is exactly analogous. The Committee recommended, among its many recommendations, in paragraph 68 in page 146:
The efficient use of capital would be encouraged if the Boards had to compete for capital funds on the market without the support of the Treasury guarantee, but this course could only be followed if it were also applied to other nationalised industries.
It is not sufficient for my right hon. Friend to fob off the Conservative side of the House of Commons by saying that this is part of a general problem and that

he proposes to deal with it at some future date. I want it dealt with in the lifetime of this Government. [Interruption.] I would expect to be opposed in principle by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I would expect to be supported in principle by my hon. Friends sitting on this side, and I think that they might cheer up a bit.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is now going rather wide of the Clause which deals with road licences only and does not deal with the whole question of the competition between State and other industries.

Mr. Nabarro: I will return to the words of the Clause which my right hon. Friend proposes to remove. At the end of that Clause he uses the words:
undue or unfair disadvantages in competing with them"—
private enterprise interests—
as respects the carriage of goods by road".
It is my claim that so long as there is a Treasury guarantee applied to money used by British Road Services there will always be an unfair disadvantage placed on private enterprise. I leave that point because I notice that my remarks are not well received by the Chair. With the statement on the general principle—

Mr. Mellish: The hon. Member must not talk like that to the Chair.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) meant to criticise the Chair, but I was at a loss to understand the relevance of some of his remarks to the precise points covered by this Clause. The hon. Member has developed a general argument which might be relevant on another occasion but cannot be on this. The hon. Member must confine himself to whether or not this should be a ground for the revocation of A or B licences. The Clause does not raise the whole question. The hon. Member must have some regard to the rules of relevance.

Mr. Nabarro: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. I will return to the disadvantage, because the word "disadvantage" is clearly stated in the Clause which it is proposed to remove. I claim that it is manifestly a disadvantage that this publicly-owned sector of the industry will continue to be allowed to raise its capital under Treasury guarantee and on preferential terms.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has made that point. If he will now show the relevance of the point to the A and B licences covered by the Clause, I think that the House will be obliged to him.

Mr. Nabarro: I hope that when my right hon. Friend re-enacts this provision in the Road Traffic Bill, which is his stated intention, he will ensure that these disadvantages placed on long-distance private enterprise are removed and that there shall be scrupulously fair and equitable competition between the two sides of the industry, the publicly-owned, on the one hand, and the privately-owned, on the other.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Mellish: If I may reply to the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), it seems to me that he has overstated his case and, in doing so, has become offensive to almost everyone, including his own supporters and the Chair. The burden of his case—and this is where he and I must always differ—is that he says that the nationalised undertaking evidently gets the benefit of Treasury assistance with regard to the money which it is able to raise—

Mr. Nabarro: Subsidised.

Mr. Mellish: —and, as a consequence, is able to give better and cheaper service to the consumer. I should have thought that that was not a bad principle. It is certainly a principle that I support. When he talks about the higher interest charges that private enterprise has to pay, the answer lies at the doorstep of his own Government, and nowhere else.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I am glad to hear that this Clause is to be carried forward into the Road Traffic Bill and not dropped, because a great many of us place a great deal of reliance on this Clause, which is a very formidable one. It must not be forgotten that British Road Services will be in a very preferential position compared with the ordinary haulier by virtue of one factor, that British Road Services will be about twenty times bigger than the biggest road haulage fleet. The largest road haulage fleet is about 300 vehicles and British Road Services has about 7,000 vehicles.
In all sorts of ways it will be in a very important and strong position. It starts off from a good strategic basis, namely,

that it is a business which is running well. If, on top of that, British Road Services were to indulge in any unfair competition by providing services below cost it would be setting out to wreck the haulage industry as a whole. This is something which ought to be safeguarded and watched very carefully indeed. Therefore, I am glad that this Clause is to be carried on, because a colossus such as B.R.S. is in relation to the ordinary road haulage business may be able to run privately owned business off the roads.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I am, of course, glad that the Minister has agreed to withdraw this Clause. I thought that it was a bad Clause from many points of view. I was always very doubtful whether the basic proposal in it, that the Commission should be liable to have its A and B licences suspended from its vehicles because it was charging less than the cost of the service, was really a practicable and sensible suggestion. It has always appeared to me that the whole matter was to a very considerable extent a sort of gesture to the Road Haulage Association, and a rather empty gesture.

Mr. Watkinson: No.

Mr. Strauss: The Minister says "No," and I accept that.

Mr. Cole: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. May I assure him that, speaking for myself and, I hope, for a number of my hon. Friends, we do not regard this as an empty gesture but as a Clause of considerable potential practical value?

Mr. Strauss: The hon. Member must realise that, knowing the history and the past activities of the Road Haulage Association, we are very suspicious. It may be that we are sometimes suspicious in a particular case without justification. We were suspicious. We felt that the principle of the Clause was not harmful, but that it had serious defects, and we are glad that the Minister has agreed to alter it and accept the new Clause which would make the penalty equal on the Commission and on private hauliers which carried goods at charges below cost. If we are to have anything of this sort, it is quite obvious that the obligation should be equal on both sides. The Minister has agreed to accept that principle. We consider it an improvement on the present


Clause and we support him in removing the Clause, which is wholly unsatisfactory.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6.—(SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OF DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY, ETC.)

Mr. Mellish: I beg to move, in page 7, line 36, to leave out "either".

Mr. Speaker: Can the hon. Member discuss the next Amendment at the same time?

Mr. Mellish: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is the Amendment in page 7, line 38, to leave out from "company" to the end of line 41.
The purpose of the Amendments is to remove from the Bill the right of the Minister to nominate directors of his own choosing to the boards of the companies which are established for the purpose of the disposal of meat and parcels services.
We had a long debate in Committee on this matter, and I hope that I shall be forgiven if I repeat some of the arguments which I used on that occasion. The objection which we had to the right of the Minister to appoint these directors is because there is no safeguard, and the directors may well have a private vested interest in the disposal of road haulage vehicles for their own personal benefit.
We had from the Minister a speech in which he gave as much assurance as I think he could. He said that he would try to get impartial advice in appointing directors. As I have said before, speaking for myself, I believe that to be true of the present Minister of Transport, but knowing the activities of this Government and remembering that we have had three Ministers of Transport in three years—

Mr. Nabarro: We have had four.

Mr. Ede: All bad.

Mr. Mellish: Very well, four. There is no guarantee that the present Minister will stay in his office very long, and we have no guarantee concerning any future Minister that is appointed.
As I pointed out in Committee, it would be shocking if the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) were ever appointed Minister of Transport, although I agree that that is most unlikely in view of the powers contained in the Bill. The hon. Member has already disclosed that

he is President of the Road Haulage Association—

Mr. Nabarro: No.

Mr. Mellish: —and what he would do if he were Minister.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member must take that off the record. It is a blatant mis-statement. What I said was that I was President of the Road Passenger and Transport Association, a body complementary in its principles, but not to be confused with the Road Haulage Association.

Mr. Mellish: It is just as bad as if the hon. Member were President of the Road Haulage Association.
We on this side are worried at the prospect of Ministers having the authority to appoint to the boards of the companies people whom we would regard as most undesirable. The expression "jobs for the boys" has often been used. In this case, the Minister could appoint people with leanings towards denationalisation and private vested interests. We do not yet know what the pay for these jobs is to be, but they certainly would be jobs for the boys in that sense. We are asking for this power of appointment by the Minister to be deleted.
In Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary rather gave the game away. He reminded us that this part of the Clause must be read in conjunction with Clause 2 (1, d), which uses the words:
or undertake to procure persons to purchase all or any of the securities or who agree themselves to purchase all or any of the securities not otherwise sold as the result of the offer.
The Parliamentary Secretary quoted that as showing that the kind of people whom it was desired to have on the boards were those who could choose the people to buy the securities.
Of course, we on this side are opposed to this part of the Bill in principle. We think that the parcels and meat services should not be interfered with. We have had some assurance that for a year, or for two or three years, perhaps, they will not be interfered with, but I do not see how the Minister can justify the Bill in its present form without giving us more than the verbal assurances that he has given so far.
We need protection against future Ministers of Transport. I am convinced


that the right hon. Gentleman has enough enemies of transport behind him on the benches opposite to use all their influence to get on to the boards of companies the kind of people who would go to almost any limits to dispose of these services and at prices which may well not be economic. We have already argued that both these services are doing a fine job. The fact that they are making a substantial profit should appeal to the hon. Member for Kidderminster, and they are needed by the trade.

Mr. Pargiter: I beg to second the Amendment.
This is an important Amendment. We are not so much concerned with a question of bad faith on the part of Ministers as with the inevitable difficulties in which any Minister would be placed in consultations with anyone concerning people suitable for nomination as directors of one of the companies. The appointment will not be limited to one financial adviser. The Minister may make any number of appointments providing that those whom he appoints are not in a majority on the board. Therefore, if the board comprised 12 members, he could appoint five of the directors.
I am sure that the Minister would take great care in endeavouring to find the right people whose knowledge would be of advantage to the company. He must appeal to specific interests, either in transport or in finance, or both, but these interests would not necessarily be the same as those of the companies so long as they remain under national control; in fact, they might well be precisely the opposite. Therefore, even with the best of intentions by the Minister, and with every intention by these people as collective bodies to be impartial, there would obviously be a leaning towards people who, while their advice would not necessarily be against the sound financial running of the company, would be subjected to pressure from the other side to ensure that the interests were disposed of.
It might appear to be a safeguard that the Minister will not appoint a majority of the directors. Nevertheless, those whom he appoints could make representations to him. They or any other group of interested people might make representations to him so plausibly that the Minister considers there is a good deal

in what they say; and quite apart from what the company or the main body of directors thinks, the Minister could give directions as to how they act in the disposal of securities or other matters. We are much afraid that this wide power which the Minister is given could operate against the best interests of the companies, either in continuing to be run by the Commission or by being disposed of at unrealistic prices.
To give it the worst possible complexion, it is quite possible that there would be a number of part-time directors with a direct interest, either financial or in transport, in the type of work done by the companies in other directions and by other competing companies. It is asking too much to expect that they would lean over backwards to keep the companies in the hands of the Commission when they could be disposed of and when these people would be in the position of advising on their disposal as well as advising those who buy the companies.
We do not like this dangerous position. We do not think that the Minister, even with the best intentions, would be able to obtain impartial people. It is all very well to get a business man to advise and act on a nationalised board when it is known that it continues to run as a nationalised undertaking and any public-spirited person wants to run it in the best national interests, but when people are to be appointed for creating confidence in the City and among others for the disposal of the assets, it may well be that the confidence is very much misplaced. These people may have, if not a direct interest, a considerable indirect interest in the disposal of the companies. At the worst it could lead to corruption and at best it is very dangerous indeed, and the Minister ought not to do it.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Watkinson: I am not quite sure how seriously hon. Members opposite mean their Amendment, because while it is a very attractive political argument to say that businessmen are public spirited when they serve, for example, in the regional management of British Railways, but will not be public spirited when they serve on one of these companies, it is an argument which is a little difficult to support on practical grounds.
The safeguard which hon. Members have tried to get round, but which


remains, is that I have no power to appoint a majority of the directors of the boards of these companies. I think everybody in the House knows quite well that in these companies to be set up there is no way by which the policy of the companies can be decided, if a division of opinion occurs, but by the majority. Therefore, there is no possibility at all of these gentlemen being able to impose an improper course of action upon a company. Even if they should try, I still have my powers and responsibilities, and I made it quite clear, when we discussed this matter before, that I propose to arm myself with advice, if the Disposal Board is no longer in operation, so that I can carry out the final responsibility which I have in these matters in the public interest.
While I can understand hon. Gentlemen opposite putting down the Amendment, perhaps to obtain this further assurance, I must say that there is no danger here. It is absolutely necessary to have these directors as representatives of special interests to facilitate the sale of the companies and to ensure the security of their profitable operation should they be so sold. I hope that hon. and right hon. Members opposite will not press the Amendment. If they do, I cannot advise the House to accept it.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I regret that I am quite unconvinced by the easy way in which the Minister has attempted to brush aside this Amendment. We had a comparatively lengthy discussion of this matter in Committee, and my hon. Friends and I were not at all happy over the explanations which were given us then by both the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister himself, and I certainly do not feel any better satisfied by the brief remarks of the Minister tonight. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman's intentions are honourable, but he is setting himself an impossible task, for the very reasons which have been given by my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter), who made a convincing case about the danger which lies in the power vested in the Minister.
It was the Parliamentary Secretary who really gave the show away in Committee, when he said:
If there is to be any prospect of selling the parcels company successfully to financial interests, it will be most desirable to have on

the board business men in whom the City would have confidence and who would continue to remain on the board after the ownership of the shares had been transferred from the Commission to the private investors."—[OFFICAL REPORT, Standing Committee D. 15th March, 1956; c. 166.]

Mr. G. Wilson: So what?

Mr. Davies: That is what is worrying us over these boards and appointments. It seems to us that the Minister is taking power which he will, on his own confession, use to appoint to these boards people who are interested parties, who will be interested either in transport, as my hon. Friend pointed out, in running competitive transport concerns, or interested in finance and in the purchase of the securities of these companies.
We consider that that is wrong and, as has been said, could lead to doubtful dealings, or to doubtful interests being represented and to their desires being pressed upon the Minister or the Disposal Board, whoever is responsible for the sale; dealings resulting in gain to themselves. It certainly would be a scandal if the persons appointed to these boards were themselves later financially interested in the operation of these companies once they had been transferred from public to private ownership if they were representatives appointed by the Minister but, at the same time, were interested in transport and in finance outside of the nationally owned undertaking upon which they were serving.
They might assist in fattening it so that it would, upon being sold off, be a very profitable concern, if they continued as members of the board, as the Parliamentary Secretary suggested. What worries us is the possibility that persons will be appointed to these boards, possibly in all good faith, who will remain interested parties after a transfer has taken place. We do not consider that that is right or in accordance with normal practice in Government affairs.
We could consent not to divide the House only if we could receive a sufficient assurance from the Minister that he will not appoint to these boards anybody who is a potential purchaser of the companies; that no one will serve on one of these boards and then, on the transfer from public to private ownership, become an interested party in the company. We require an assurance that no members of the boards of the parcels or


meat companies will have any financial interest direct or indirect in the purchase of the company; in other words, he should not be a party to the transfer and retain any financial interest in it. Unless we get such an assurance from the Minister I shall have to advise my hon. and right hon. Friends to divide the House.
There is another point I would make which arises from the Committee's proceedings on the Bill. The other reason which the Parliamentary Secretary gave why it was necessary for the Minister to have this power to appoint persons to the boards other than those whom the Commission itself appointed to its subsidiary companies was this:
If a subsidiary company is formed which owns the parcels service, it is, in the first place, probable that the gentlemen responsible for the administration of British Road Services will not take as much interest in the parcels company, which they know is likely to be sold, as they will in the larger concerns which they know they are to keep."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 15th March, 1956; c. 166.]
That is quite unconvincing in the light of the manner in which the Commission has carried on since the 1953 Act. From the time that the Commission was instructed to dispose of its undertakings it has acted in good faith. It is incredible that it has carried on so successfully, operating profitably, at the same time as it has been disposing of its vehicles. Although it has known that the number of vehicles at its disposal was steadily to decline it has continued to operate to the best of its ability, and has done so very successfully indeed. It is an insult to the Commission to suggest that because the parcels and meat services are to be sold—and it was well known that they were to be sold or to be put up for sale after the passing of the 1953 Act—it will not do its utmost to operate them successfully until they are disposed of. How is it that the parcels company is continuing to operate at the present time at a profit at the rate of £1 million a year? It is a most successful undertaking, despite the fact that it has been put up for sale once.
The argument put forward in Committee by the Parliamentary Secretary, and the unconvincing arguments put forward by the Minister tonight, have not in any way changed the attitude which we took in Committee and which led us to put down this Amendment, an Amendment

designed only to protect the community against the abuse of the manner in which national assets are put up for disposal.

Mr. G. Wilson: The trouble with hon. Members opposite is that their ideology runs away with them so much that they sometimes believe it themselves. Apparently, they think that profits are a bad thing and something dishonest, and that, therefore, anybody interested in profits must also be dishonest. I would ask the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) to move along the Front Bench and talk with his right hon. Friend on his left, the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss), who knows a great deal about private enterprise in industry.
Directors of companies, simply because they are interested in profits, in making a concern profitable and not running it at a loss, are not necessarily the sort of people who will act in a dishonest way. Any person of whom there is any doubt is not likely to be appointed by the Minister, who will appoint reasonable and responsible persons, who, as my right hon. Friend says, will have the confidence of the City. [Laughter.] After all, if we are asking people to put their money into a company, we must appoint directors who are not only competent but honest. What I have said is nothing to be laughed at, but common sense.
If we want to run a concern by private enterprise, it is reasonable to appoint as directors people with experience of it and particular experience of the things with which they will be dealing. It is going rather far to suggest that the Minister should only appoint directors in conditions in which they would know nothing of, or would not be likely to be interested in, the business to which they are appointed. That is going much too far, and I therefore hope that the Minister will resist the Amendment.

Mr. Sparks: I should like to make a short intervention in reply to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson). I think the hon. Gentleman let the cat out of the bag when he said that his right hon. Friend would appoint on the boards of these companies persons who would be acceptable to the City. What sort of persons will they be? If they were to be persons conversant with the transport problems of the country, who had


the interests of our transport resources and the public at heart, we should not have much disagreement with the right hon. Gentleman, but the hon. Member for Truro has confirmed our suspicions that it is his intention, under this part of the Clause, to put a kind of fifth column individual on these boards to see that these undertakings shall as rapidly as possible be diverted from the British Transport Commission into a new form of capitalist enterprise. Presumably, from what the hon. Member for Truro said, they will, to a man, be capitalists first and everything else will be subordinated to that interest.
We are opposing that, because, first, we think it is quite unnecessary for the right hon. Gentleman to have this sort of fifth columnist on the boards of any public companies to advise him. If the purpose is to advise him, then there is something radically wrong with his own Department if, within it, he has not already got people who are competent to advise him about putting into operation the provisions of this Bill and the transfer of the Commission's undertakings to these companies. There is something radically wrong in his Department if that is so, because I should have thought that there were men and probably women of

first-class competence who could advise him on these matters.

To suggest that he will go into the City and pick out all the hard-boiled capitalists he can find, plant them on these boards to make sure that the public are robbed of their assets, and that the speed with which they are robbed of their assets, which are then to be handed over to private enterprise, is to be accelerated, we think is quite wrong. The right hon. Gentleman cannot blame us for this situation. His hon. Friends have just told us what the intention is. They so much hate the idea of public enterprise that they cannot leave it to the Commission to do the right thing by this House and by the law. They are suspicious of it, and, therefore, want to bring in these individuals to watch the Commission and the other directors to make sure that the concerns are run down as rapidly as possible and taken over by a new form of organisation. I hope that the House will support our Amendment, because it is designed in the public interest.

Question put, That "either" stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 200, Noes 165.

Division No. 146.]
AYES
[7.15 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.


Aitken, W. T.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Alport, C. J. M.
Craddook, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Crouch, R. F.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Arbuthnot, John
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Armstrong, C. W.
Dance, J. C. G.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Atkins, H. E.
Deedes, W. F.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.


Baldwin, A. E.
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Balniel, Lord
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)


Barlow, Sir John
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Barter, John
Drayson, G. B.
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
du Cann, E. D. L.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Horobin, Sir Ian


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Warwick &amp; L'm'tn)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Errington, Sir Eric
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)


Bidgood, J. C.
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Howard, John (Test)


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Fell, A.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Finlay, Graeme
Hughes, Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.


Bishop, F. P.
Fisher, Nigel
Hulbert, Sir Norman


Black, C. W.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Hyde, Montgomery


Body, R. F.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.


Boothby, Sir Robert
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Iremonger, T. L.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Freeth, D. K.
Irvine, Byant Codman (Rye)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Gibson-Watt, D.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Glover, D.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Bryan, P.
Godber, J. B.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Gower, H. R.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Burden, F. F. A.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Green, A.
Joseph, Sir Keith


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot


Channon, H.
Grimond, J.
Keegan, D.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Kerby, Capt. H. B.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Kerr, H. W.


Cole, Norman
Gurden, Harold
Kershaw, J. A.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Kimball, M.




Lambton, Viscount
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Leavey, J. A.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Teeling, W.


Leburn, W. G.
Page, R. G.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Partridge, E.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Pitman, I. J.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Pott, H. P.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Powell, J. Enoch
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Rawlinson, Peter
Tweedsmuir, Lady


McKibbin, A. J.
Redmayne, M.
Vane, W. M. F.


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Vickers, Miss J. H.


Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Renton, D. L. M.
Vosper, D. F.


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Ridsdale, J. E.
Wade, D. W.


Maddan, Martin
Rippon, A. G. F.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Roper, Sir Harold
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Russell, R. S.
Wall, Major Patrick


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Marples, A. E.
Shepherd, William
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Marshall, Douglas
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Webbe, Sir H.


Mathew, R.
Soames, Capt. C.
Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith &amp; Border)


Maude, Angus
Spearman, A. C. M.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Mawby, R. L.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Molson, A. H. E.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Stevens, Geoffrey
Woollam, John Victor


Nairn, D. L. S.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Neave, Airey
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)



Nicholls, Harmar
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Studholme, H. G.
Colonel J. H. Harrison and


Nugent, G. R. H.
Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)
Mr. Richard Thompson.




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Messer, Sir F.


Albu, A. H.
Greenwood, Anthony
Mitchison, G. H.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Monslow, W.


Anderson, Frank
Grey, C. F.
Moody, A. S.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Moss, R.


Bartley, P.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Moyle, A.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Benson, G.
Hamilton, W. W.
Oliver, G. H.


Beswick, F.
Hannan, W.
Oram, A. E.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hastings, S.
Orbach, M.


Blackburn, F.
Hayman, F. H.
Oswald, T.


Blenkinsop, A.
Healey, Denis
Owen, W. J.


Boardman, H.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Padley, W. E.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Herbison, Miss M.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Hobson, C. R.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Boyd, T. G.
Holman, P.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Houghton, Douglas
Pargiter, G. A.


Brockway, A. F.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Paton, J.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pearson, A.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Burke, W. A.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hunter, A. E.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Probert, A. R.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Janner, B.
Proctor, W. T.


Callaghan, L. J.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Randall, H. E.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Rankin, John


Champion, A. J.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Redhead, E. C.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Kenyon, C.
Reeves, J.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Reid, William


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
King, Dr. H. M.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Cove, W. G.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Cronin, J. D.
Lindgren, G. S.
Ross, William


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Logan, D. G.
Shinwell, R. Hon. E.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Short, E. W.


Delargy, H. J.
MacColl, J. E.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Dodds, N. N.
McGhee, H. G.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Donnelly, D. L.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McLeavy, Frank
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Skeffington, A. M.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mahon, Simon
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Sorensen, R. W.


Fernyhough, E.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddertfd, E.)
Sparks, J. A.


Fletcher, Eric
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mason, Roy
Stokes, R. Hon. R. R. (Ipswich)


Gibson, C. W.
Mellish, R. J.
Stones, W. (Consett)







Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Williams, W. B. (Openshaw)


Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Warbey, W. N.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Woof, R. E.


Sylvester, G. O.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
West, D. G.
Zilliacus, K.


Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Wheeldon, W. E.



Thornton, E.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Turner-Samuels, M.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)
Mr. Holmes and Mr. Deer.


Resolution agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. H. Molson.]

7.25 p.m.

Mr. Proctor: The Bill is designed to mitigate some of the evils of the Transport Act, 1953, but it has not gone as far as we wanted. When the Tory Party came to power, it observed that road transport was a very prosperous section of the transport industry and it decided to take that prosperous part and to give it to its friends. It was as simple as that. To make it appear a little more palatable, it said that the British Transport Commission should be compensated, but the basis of compensation was not fair and was never accepted by the Commission. The basis of compensation could not be made fair without altogether destroying the Transport Act, 1953.
The then Minister of Transport, now the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, indicated that the loss to the Commission would be about £20 million. The Commission never accepted that figure. Millions of pounds were lost to the public as a result of that legislation. The Tory Government found, despite the clamour by City financiers and the wide-awake gentlemen who want something for nothing, and who called for all the Commission's lorries to be sold at knock-down prices, that they were unable to continue with that policy.
The Commission considered that the Government should have taken the opportunity afforded by the Bill to review the whole basis of compensation. The Commission is in a difficulty, because there is no one in the House in a position to speak for it. We should have heard more about the Commission's request to have the basis of compensation revised. The only reference to that was a casual reference made by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary in Committee when he said that the Commission had asked that the opportunity of revising the basis of compensation should be taken.
During discussion of the Bill, the parcels organisation and the meat

organisation have been very fully considered. It is suggested that in some mysterious way the two organisations will benefit from having been given a very low value. It seems to me that if a business is appropriated at a very low rate and is then sold, a very nice profit will be made.
What is to happen to the parcels and meat sections of the industry as a result of the Bill is extraordinary. Companies are to be promoted to run the organisations efficiently. People from the City are to be brought in to do this. I do not know who these people are to be, but in days gone by Bottomley, Hatry, Hooley, or Jabez Balfour might have been interested in these jobs.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) referred to someone who had the confidence of the City. These people who have the confidence of the City have a duty to perform. They are to look into the organisation of the parcels and meat sections of the industry and assist in their sale to private enterprise. It is an extraordinary procedure. As matters stand, the Bill means that whilst insufficient private money comes forward to buy these concerns on a fair basis, public money is to be used.
We are concerned that, under the provisions of the Bill, payments to the Commission are to cease in a very short time. It is claimed that £12¼ million is sufficient to compensate the Commission. I have pointed out that the Commission does not accept the figure and considers the basis of the calculation to be disastrously unfair to nationalised transport. It should be remembered that the transport levy was never a labour policy. Responsibility for the levy rests squarely upon the Tory Government and hon. Members opposite. Every man who pays the transport levy knows that it is a burden placed upon him as a result of Tory policy. We on this side of the House have never accepted it as a fair basis for dealing with this matter and in our opinion £12¼ million is not a proper estimate.
We should have liked to have had an independent person appointed to go fairly and properly into this whole matter. All that can be said for the Bill is that, accepting the principle of the 1953 Act, the Commission's auditors say that they have no quarrel with the figures. We are very anxious to see an auditor independent of the Commission and of the Government have a real look at the situation so that we may be sure that the fair thing is being done.
I am sorry to say that we have reached the miserable position in which the only custodians of the public interest in this matter sit on this side of the House. Hon. Members opposite have at heart the interests of their friends and not the interests of nationalised industry. It is a sad situation for the nation. The Commission makes no great attempt to put its position before anyone except the Minister. The Commission has no right to put out propaganda on its own behalf. We therefore have a situation in which a Government and a Ministry which are prejudiced against nationalisation are the only vehicle for the enlightenment of the public.

Mr. Watkinson: Is the hon. Member saying that I have ever refused to put to the House any point which the Commission thought it proper that I should put to it?

Mr. Proctor: I am certainly not saying that. I am saying that the Commission has no vehicle for the expression of its opinion on these matters. The Commission owes it first loyalty, naturally, to the Minister of Transport and his Joint Parliamentary Secretary. There is an eminent general at the head of the Commission, and loyalty ranks high in the breast of any military gentleman. He possibly regards the Minister and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary as field marshals and considers that his loyalty is to them. I say that it is we on this side of the House who have to put the situation before the House and the people and defend the interests of the Commission.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Some generals have loyalty to their troops.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Member should get to his feet if he wants to say anything.

Mr. Proctor: The Government have not attempted to put this kind of policy in operation in the case of other nationalised industries. They would not think of saying to the National Coal Board, "Divest yourself of some of your most prosperous subsidiary undertakings." We should have had complete disaster in the mining industry if the Government had done that. The railwaymen and transport workers have observed closely what the Government's policy has been. I put the most serious point to the Tory Party that in relation to railwaymen and other transport workers we on this side of the House have been always mindful of the fact that we had to make nationalisation pay and had to keep nationalised industry prosperous.
If increased wages were demanded, the financial position of the industries had always to be considered. However, when the railwaymen and other transport workers saw the Government deliberately taking action that could end only in financial distaster, they said, "We cannot be held responsible for this" and they put before the Transport Commission an unwavering demand for a living wage which should not be dependent upon the financial position of the industry. A famous decision by the Tribunal said that the nation willed the end and, therefore, must will the means, and we have had chaos in the industry as a result of Government policy.
Railwaymen won the point that they are entitled to a full living wage irrespective of whether the industry pays or not; and the taxpayer will have to pay for the Government's folly. The Government ought to have called together the trade unions and the Transport Commission and ought to have taken into consultation the most brilliant brains in private industry. They should have said, "What can we do now to place before the community a new conception of efficiency in nationalised industry which would make certain that we should have an efficient instrument to serve the needs of this great industrial community?" What chances the Government have had to do that! Instead, the Government come forward with this miserable Bill.
I view with great concern the fact that the Government are prejudiced against nationalised transport. The Tory Party


has accepted the idea of nationalisation and public ownership in some other spheres. It has accepted that public ownership of the Post Office and of some of our great docks is essential. Nationalisation of public houses in Carlisle was accepted in 1917 and the principle has continued in operation ever since. I beg them now to change their ideas and outlook and to accept that it is in the public interest that we should have a strong and efficient nationalised transport system. We shall get that not by the sale of these lorries and the continuance of this present policy, but by going back to the policy of a controlled nationalised industry which will serve the needs of the whole community. I am sorry to find the Government so adamant. I ask them to review the position once again.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Rees-Davies: To listen to the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) one might think that we were denationalising further instead of to some extent again renationalising the industry. But I am not sure that I wish to go into arguments quite so wide which perhaps the hon. Member was fortunate in being able to advance without interruption. I wish to confine myself to a number of issues of great importance to at least one sector of this industry, the long-distance road hauliers, who do not have the honour to serve British Road Services but who, none the less, may well change their employment and be working for private employers at one time and British Road Services at others.
I wish to make one remark to hon. Members opposite which is tinged with regret. When they talk of British Road Services as if it is the only road haulage interest of any importance in this country, they are doing a great disservice to the many thousands of men who drive for a number of great concerns and on whose behalf I speak tonight. The views I put forward and the thoughts I express tonight are not only those of the National Conference, but are also voiced on behalf of the Road Hauliers' Association. I consider them a fair summary, if not a detailed generality, of the views of this section of men, and a very large number of men who work with them share these views.
As a matter of principle, I think it can be truly stated that hon. Members on this

side of the House, and the Government, believe that the proper aim is a fairly balanced competitive co-existence. That phrase is not mine; it came originally from my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke). I think it fairly expresses the feelings of the Government and the Conservative Party on this partisan issue and what we believe should be achieved.
This Bill must be examined as only part of the pattern to see whether it furthers that objective. It was because there was a grave fear in the minds of the members of the road haulage industry that it would deter any advance to that objective that this Bill has not been well received by any part of the industry under private enterprise. Indeed, it was opposed root and branch by all those involved. But that was the view at the outset, and tonight I would say that while there are still the gravest misgivings about this Bill, a large number of these misgivings have been dealt with in the course of discussion and rediscussion, both before the Second Reading debate and following it; and after people in the industry had the opportunity of consultations with the Minister and his colleagues, and with hon. Members on this side of the House who have discussed with these men the various issues involved.
The first and, I think, the greatest assurance which they have received was given them in the words of the Minister himself, who said, during the Second Reading debate:
In other words, I think that it should not become monopolistic, that it should play fair and exercise fair competitive methods, and that it should not, for example, be able to cut its prices on the ground of being able to increase its deficit or any particular practice of that kind. That is the kind of control to which we wish to subject the transport industry; subject only to one other thing. … that we think we have introduced into the industry enough competition to make both sectors of it work at their maximum efficiency."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th February, 1956; Vol. 548, c. 1937.]
We on this side of the House, and think, through us, many of those who have long experience of the transport industry, are prepared to take a good deal on trust from this Minister and from this Government. We believe that the Minister will continue to keep a watchful eye over the operation of the provisions of this Bill in the future. Unlike the provisions of so many other Bills, that will


be a continuing process. It is a continuous process industry, and this is only one of a number of Measures. If, therefore, as I believe the figure which has been written into the Bill is too high, it is not irrevocable—[HON. MEMBERS: "Or too low."]—yes, it is the same argument, or too low. It is not irrevocable.
I believe that the figure is too high. I did not serve on the Standing Committee responsible for the Committee stage of this Bill, and I gave careful thought to whether it was right for me, on Report stage, to table again Amendments along lines similar to those moved during the Committee stage. Very naturally, I discussed the proposed Amendments with the Associations. I would point out that these Associations cannot be composed of the type of people which hon. Members opposite suggest, because we have not been troubled with any Amendments from them. I say categorically that had there been strong feeling expressed by the whole road haulage industry, I should have felt it my duty to see that that feeling was ventilated on Report stage. In fact, the matter has been left for these opinions to be expressed during this Third Reading debate.
In my view, if 3,300 vehicles was the actual figure for long-distance road haulage, and if we allow a figure of 1,500 on top for feeder services, making 4,800, we must allow a reasonable number in addition to that, and I should have said that 6,000 was a reasonable figure on the basis of the existing services of British Road Services. That is to say, on the trunk routes they are running. What happened is that Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve had to determine something not mathematically, but as a matter of opinion, and he did what I should have done in his position; and as a good private enterprise man in charge of a State-controlled industry. Obviously, he tried to arrive at something on which he thought he could get agreement. He realised that they would probably ask for 10,000 or 12,000 as their figure, and he realised, of course, that something like 5,000 was about as much as the private interests would be prepared to agree.
Naturally, therefore, he advised something between the two figures. I certainly do not criticise him for doing so. On the contrary, I think that he

was wise as it turned out, because it looks as though he may manage to get away with it. However, there it is. I do not think it is the right figure because, as a Conservative, I should look for a figure which was the minimum required to ensure that the trunk services were adequately and properly supplied. Solely on that test 6,000 would be ample.
I wish to pass from that, because I think there is still time to look at that figure in another place, and it should be examined. It should be carefully considered in the light of the experience of many other people who have knowledge of this industry. None the less, the really important question, as I have already said, is to ensure that there should not be monopolistic trading conditions, but that a future should be obtained for this industry of competitive co-existence—that most attractive phrase coined by my hon. Friend—and I pass on now to the second main principle.
I believe it to be the Government's view that, as a matter of principle, British Road Services should run along the same lines and be subject to the same conditions as is private enterprise. In one respect the Minister has indicated quite emphatically that that should be so with regard to the parcels and the meat companies. In the Second Reading debate he said:
I think it is our duty now, in the public interest, to run this company as a proper operating commercial concern for a period and then see how it gets on. It will also show what sort of trading results it can give, and that is the right thing to do in the public interest, certainly not to attempt to sell again at this moment when it is obvious that we cannot get any acceptable offer. The same general principle applies to the meat company.
The importance of that statement is that it underlies the principle which he has in mind, namely, to run these companies as commercial concerns, upon the same lines as private enterprise.
If that is so in relation to the companies, it must also apply in relation to the services and structure of British Road Services. It is not only a question of the companies which B.R.S. operates being run under these conditions; it is, as was alluded to earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro)—whether or not he was in order—a question of the principle which should apply to the whole of British Road Services. There is, therefore, a great deal of weight in these arguments.
I now turn to the third principle, which has been much neglected hitherto. Those of us who are associated with the private associations will assist in every way in trying to ensure that, in future, there is close joint consultation between the private and public sectors of the transport industry and, of course, between them and the Minister. At the moment, there is not the slightest doubt that the private sector can see the Minister, and that the Minister can see the public sector—but the apex of the triangle never converges. To some extent the public and private services are at arms length. If we make an approach of this kind we can achieve the hopes which the Minister referred to, again during the Second Reading debate, when he said:
If I may give them both a word of advice"—
that is, the public and private sectors of the industry—
they should do what all other competitive industries do, and that is, while having free and frank competition, none the less, consult one another on the matters of general interest to the industry as a whole. There is great scope there for co-operation. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th February, 1956; Vol. 548, c. 1936–7.]
The Bill is certainly beneficial to the extent that it narrows the margin between the parties concerned. We may now, as a result of the difficulties which have arisen, be able to achieve a closer co-operation between the various interests in the industry. To my mind, that is perhaps the most beneficial aspect of a Bill which, in so many other respects, I am forced to criticise.
I hope that it will introduce a new spirit. If it does, that new spirit will arise very largely from the personal handling of this industry in future by the Minister and also by Sir Brian Robertson and the other leaders associated with him. Hon. Members on both sides of the House can play a great part in bringing together the two sectors of the industry in order to achieve genuine competition and discontinue some of the practices which those whom I represent complain about and to which I shall allude briefly before I conclude.
There are still many sales to be undertaken because the Bill, as amended, retains the provisions of Section 1 of the Transport Act, 1953. As the Parliamentary Secretary said during the Committee stage:

We are not able to say exactly how many vehicles are still to be sold … I would point out that Section 1 of the Transport Act, 1953, will continue to apply even after this Bill is on the Statute Book … we do not intend that as a result of the passing of the Bill there shall be any slowing down in the disposal of the vehicles which remain …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 6th March, 1956; c. 44–5.]
The Bill therefore provides an opportunity to avoid what I regard as the mistakes of the past. Until the Bill had received its Second Reading, I did not understand—and I do not believe other people associated with the industry understood—that the long distance road hauliers, who wanted to buy ten, twenty or thirty vehicles, have always insisted that they never had a proper chance to do so, under the S.4 list or anything else. They say that although 80 per cent. of the industry has had an opportunity to get back its vehicles, the long distance operators have not been able to do so.
I raise that point solely in relation to the sales which will continue to take place of the balance of the vehicles. I earnestly ask the Minister to give us an assurance that in these further sales he will obtain the views of the Road Haulage Association and the National Conference, with a view to seeing that the units to be sold in the winding up operations are properly constituted into lots which can be disposed of satisfactorily, especially in relation to the six- and eight-wheelers. Among the remaining vehicles to be sold there are many which can be easily and properly disposed of in that way. That will also assist the wishes of hon. Members opposite, who have drawn attention to the necessity for speeding up the balance of this operation. It is also in accordance with the statement of the Minister.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Can the hon. Member explain what units he has in mind? As I understand, there are very few vehicles left to be sold under the provisions of Section 1 of the 1953 Act. The present Bill provides for the sale of vehicles to companies, mainly comprising the parcels and meat organisations. Apart from that, I do not think that there are sufficient units to be offered under Section 1.

Mr. Rees-Davies: We do not know anything about the number involved, but I want to give an illustration of what I


have in mind. I think that the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) will then appreciate my point. Mr. Hayman, a managing director of J. and H. Transport Services, says that his company operates 49 vehicles. Eight are of seven tons unladen weight; one is of five tons unladen weight, and the remaining 40 of three tons unladen weight. That company is obviously out of balance for large carrying capacity vehicles. It therefore finds it very difficult to compete with the trunk services of B.R.S., which has a much higher ratio of large carrying capacity vehicles. He wants to buy 20 of the six or eight wheelers so that he can get rid of the 40 three-tonners.
Vehicles of large carrying capacity should not be sold in the same lot as three-tonners. The real demand at the moment is for the heavy vehicles, and they should be sold all together in one lot. If they are so sold in one lot much greater care should be taken to see that different makes of vehicles are not mixed together, as has happened regularly in the past. Vehicles not only of different ages but of different classes have been sold in the same lot. I hope that great care will be taken to see that these vehicles are disposed of in the most acceptable condition.
I pass from that to the question of accounts. If the principles which were advocated before the Minister came in are accepted in British Road Services, then I am right in asking that B.R.S. should be made to run in all respects in fair competition with private enterprise. I do not ask the Minister to give me a definite answer now but that he should consider what he will do on the question of financial guarantees by the Treasury.
In the light of what has been said about the electricity industry, the Cabinet should consider whether the time has not come to remove the guarantee from British Road Services and allow the concern to operate independently. It should go through the open market for the money it needs, on the basis that it can be run as a profitable, independent concern, liable for full interest rates and liable to the terms of the Companies Act.
As British Road Services cover wider and more powerful interests than normal companies, I am asking that the same

principles should be applied to British Road Services. This matter might well be considered before the Bill goes to another place to see whether this principle can be written into the Bill. If so, the Bill might well be the forerunner of a plan which could be applied to other nationalised industries. I invite the Minister to give us an assurance that he will bear this matter in mind and will raise it at the appropriate time and place as one of considerable national importance.
A matter of most critical concern is licensing. I ask hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House how they would like to be in competition with an organisation which can switch vehicles all over the country in order to build up the pattern it desires, so that if it has to appear before a court it can put its competitors in the position that they cannot prove their case.
There are two points to raise on this important question of licensing: one is a principle which I believe the Government support, namely, that the licensing position between British Road Services and the private haulier should be fairly balanced. The Transport Act says specifically that the conditions of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, should apply. As a result there are very good tribunals, fairly constituted and with competent chairmen, but there are two advantages which go to the benefit of British Road Services. The first is that it is favoured as a concern engaged in long-distance road haulage and has far more vehicles and can provide far more services, than its competitors.
The second point is more important; it can switch vehicles from one area to another so as to build up whatever pattern it desires when appearing on an application before a tribunal. In a place like Buckinghamshire it can denude the area so as to make additional vehicles appear to be necessary. In other areas where it wishes to oppose applications by private hauliers it can bring in large numbers of vehicles to show that ample services are already provided. In either case, by virtue of its size, British Road Services is in a position to build up whatever pattern it likes. So long as we allow the licence to be a sort of open general licence, it can do whatever it pleases. Anybody who is an advocate can understand the


enormous advantages which this gives B.R.S. before a tribunal.
Under the Bill the Minister has specific power in relation to licensing. I want him to consider an Amendment in another place to specify that a licence to British Road Services should be based on the area in which a particular vehicle operates and would not apply throughout the country. That will prevent the switching policy of B.R.S. and will bring it into line with private enterprise. I may be told that that is unnecessary and that there are arguments against it. If my suggestion cannot be followed I ask the Minister to watch the point extremely carefully to see that B.R.S. is not able to build up the kind of picture it wants.
Despite the difficulties that have arisen and the inherent powers which the Minister has in these matters and which, over a period of time he can exercise by persuasion and discretion, I believe that the Bill does not hold the terrors which, when I first looked at it, I thought it held for the private haulier. For that reason, and particularly because it abolishes the hated levy, we support the Bill.

8.9 p.m.

Mr. Mellish: I compliment the hon. Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) on the way in which he has presented his case. Those whom he represents in this House can take great pride at least in the way their case has been presented. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport ought to be congratulated also on his most powerful speech. He dashed to the Box like a cavalier and moved, "That the Bill be now read the Third time." That was the most effective speech I have ever heard from him.
Evidently we are to hear from the Minister himself later and I am looking forward to his speech. Above all else, I hope he will let it be known that it is the Government's intention to keep this industry out of politics, at least for the remainder of their term of office. The way in which this industry has been banded about since 1953 is sickening.
Looking back, it was a tragedy that the Government did not look at this matter in another way, in order to improve the 1947 Act, rather than just smash it to pieces in the way they did.

The 1953 Act was an attempt by the Conservative Government to hand back to private enterprise all transport vehicles particularly those in trunk services, and also, as we know, to sell the parcels service and vehicles.
The history from 1953 onwards is clear, and it is a consequence of the failure of the Conservative Government to achieve just that. As we on this side of the House knew it would be, it was found that the Transport Commission had, in fact, done a fine job in the limited time available to it, and that its consumers, the users of transport all over the country, were very worried at the prospect of losing a first-class service, particularly in long-distance work. There was no doubt at all that the Tories completely failed in what they had in mind.
It has been put on record, and it can be said again, that in its attempt to destroy what we had attempted to do in the 1947 Act, the Conservative Party has cost the community £12 million. The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) said we should be glad to see the levy go. It is all part of it. It was really a scandalous loss to impose on an industry which was at that time beginning to show a reasonable profit.
Like the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet, I find good and bad in this Bill, though, of course, the difference between us is that what he finds bad I find good, and what he finds good I find bad. As regards the trunk services, I say again that this Bill in itself is an expression of admitted failure by the Conservative Party to achieve what it set out to do in 1953. Many statements have been by people not members of my party to prove that point. From the local point of view, I represent a constituency which is, of course, a transport area; the docks and road transport are very much in our line. I have myself seen the effects of previous acts of this Government, and some of them have really been quite tragic. One cannot explain to ordinary men in a constituency like mine why a depôt making £90,000 a year profit, giving first-class wages and conditions to the men and first-class service to the community, should be closed. When they are told, as they must be, that it is done under an Act of Parliament, they simply cannot understand why depôts have to be closed. They do not understand why


they should be told that the drivers are to be channelled to any private enterprise people who want them.
I hope that the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet will listen when I say that some of those whom he represents are already, in my view, starting again what they were guilty of before the 1947 Act, namely, over-working drivers. Of course, I am not saying all; they may be only exceptions to the rule; but there are those who are ignoring the question of hours. Why do the men not report them? The answer is that in transport there are not the jobs to be had like that.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Yes, there are. Take the most recent case I can think of as an example, where, at Ealing, five men gave up their jobs because they could get jobs at £22 a week rather than £20 per week. There are ample jobs in the industry. Furthermore, there is not only the law which may be enforced but there are the trade unions to whom the men can go; and, if they are at all good at the job, they can find another job, usually in the same part of the country or, if not, elsewhere.

Mr. Mellish: With respect, though I do not doubt what the hon. Gentleman says, that is not my experience. I come from an area where the situation is by no means so good. In any event, if a man has had one job for many years, he is not anxious to start another.
The position of private enterprise is, of course, very different. The hon. Gentleman said that he feared that private enterprise would suffer in competition with the Transport Commission. I agree with him at once that whilst the Commission is allowed to continue, private enterprise will get weaker and weaker. I hold the view that within a measurable distance of time we shall see the end of the transport argument in this country, because, in the very nature of the case, State ownership of transport throughout will become accepted. I believe that time will show that the arguments we have advanced in the past are still basically sound today. It should be remembered that in any argument as regards the ownership of this basic transport industry, we are aided and abetted by the views of the Royal Commission which was set up by this House to deal with the problem of transport.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet—together with many hon. Gentlemen opposite—quite sincerely put forward the argument that private enterprise will always be best, that competition is a good thing, and so on. But he really ought to know, as I have known since I was 14 years of age, and started in the transport industry, that the industry was so bad that Government after Government had to deal with private enterprise in order to get some sense out of it. It is on record that the Liberal Party—and be it noted, that not a single Liberal Member has been here all day today—said that it would go back to the days before the licensing system. At any rate, the Bill does not provide for that.
I firmly hold the view that the time must come when State ownership will be accepted as a matter of course. I look to the day when Parliament itself will be active in industry, and succeeding Governments will compete with each other to make it more efficient. It is a great tragedy that that was not the sort of frame of mind adopted when the 1953 Act was being promoted.
The good part of the Bill is that which allows the retention by British Road Services of over 7,000 vehicles for the trunk services. Attempts have been made in Committee and on Report even further to reduce this figure. We have had the argument about the 7½ per cent. The bad part of the Bill is the intention of the Government even now at this late stage to get rid of the parcels service, although we have some assurance from the Minister that they will not attempt this for some time.
Once again, here is the story. When we nationalised the industry in 1947 and British Road Services came to being, it took over the parcels service, the old Carter Paterson undertaking. By the middle of last year the parcels service had over 4,000 motor vehicles and trailers, three times as many as when the fleet was taken over. It was made truly national in operation. Eight areas were set up. Overlapping services were cut out. Fresh routes were started. Consignments up to a ton in weight were carried. The service ran night and day carrying parcels and packages. Last year it handled 100,000,000 packages. Moreover, it makes money; it made over £1 million profit last year.
In spite of that wonderful record, there is a determination on the part of the Tory Government to smash it because it created a monopoly. With respect, what was Carter Paterson before 1947, if it was not a monopoly? It was quite impossible for an ordinary man to go out and compete with Carter Paterson. Of course, when British Road Services came into being, Carter Paterson had to go. There is that wonderful record, a record which ought to go into HANSARD. Whenever we do come to discuss these matters again we shall realise that even at this late hour the Government ought really to consider whether or not they should proceed with the breaking down of this first-class service.
I should like to pay my tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member far Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) and my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) for the work they have done on this Bill. They have given the guiding spirit, as far as we are concerned, in promoting the Amendments, and I must say I have derived great confidence from sitting behind them in Committee or on the Floor of this House. I believe that neither of them can be beaten in this House in their knowledge of transport. Let me add that as we on these benches are not in office there is no possibility of my becoming a Parliamentary Private Secretary. I have no such job in mind.
I should like to conclude with a personal remark to the Minister. I believe that he has the interests of transport at heart. He is about the best Minister of Transport produced by this Government—and I can remember four Ministers of Transport in about four years. Let us hope that we shall get some continuity of policy while this Government lasts. The transport industry, and certainly the Transport Commission, can go to the present Minister, state a case fairly and he will listen to their case. Also, I am sure that he will have the courage to keep his wild men quiet. There are some hon. Members behind him who have no idea of the national needs. All they are concerned with are private vested interests. The transport industry has been badly knocked about by the Conservative Party. I hope we shall now give the industry a chance to prove, as the Transport Commission has already proved, that it can do a fine job.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. G. Wilson: There would be some danger of this debate telling a twice-told tale if the tale had not been told a good deal more than twice already. All the arguments have already been deployed, but there are two points that I should like to mention briefly.
This Bill is an amendment of the Transport Act, 1953, which, I hope hon. Members opposite will remember, was in itself to some extent a compromise. There were those on this side of the House, with their supporters outside, who would have liked a far greater measure of denationalisation than was ever intended in the 1953 Act. Therefore, when a further Measure was introduced for modifying the provisions of the 1953 Act, that was a substantial concession to the views of those who originally believed in denationalisation. When hon. Members opposite attack this Bill on the ground that even now it goes too far in the direction of denationalisation, I hope they will appreciate that it goes a good deal less further than many hon. Members on this side of the House and their supporters outside regarded as a bear minimum in the 1953 Act.
We have made a considerable contribution to compromise and peace in industry, about which it has now become the fashion, quite rightly, to talk in connection with this industry. I hope that point will be remembered, because it is essential that we should get some peace in industry.
I should like to deal with one point which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish). He envisages, whether we like it or not, that sooner or later all transport will be in public hands. I am not making a political point when I suggest that that was wishful thinking, because in the experience of this and other countries the competitor of public transport is not private enterprise haulage; it is the privately-owned vehicle. It is the man who buys his own vehicle and runs it for himself—the C licensee in the case of haulage, and the man who buys his own car in the case of passenger transport.
This applies to railways, buses and long-distance haulage. It is happening all over the world, and on the other side of the Atlantic it is happening to an even


greater extent than in this country. It is apparent from the O.E.E.C. transport report that this sort of thing has developed on a large scale in America. A large quantity of people's goods is carried in their own vehicles. That trend will affect the transport industry more and more—both the British Transport Commission and the private haulier as well as B.R.S. The sooner they get together and try to provide an efficient public transport service in co-operation with each other, the better it will be for all concerned.
It is time that we stopped all this argument. In saying that, I do not expect concessions to be all one way. If we are prepared to make certain concessions from time to time, hon. Members opposite should not expect to get the complete nationalisation which, at one time, they envisaged.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Sparks: This evening we are witnessing the passing of a Measure which indicates the failure of the policy of the present Government. My mind goes back three years ago when the Government introduced the Act of 1953 to denationalise the road haulage section of the British Transport Commission. I was present during the passing of that Measure. When that Measure was passing through the House I doubt whether any hon. Members opposite would have believed that in three years' time they would be coming to this House again to admit their failure and to introduce a new Bill to make good some of the damage.
In the 1953 Act it was expected that the whole of the vehicles of the Transport Commission could be sold off in nine months. We knew that it was impossible to dispose of them, but the Government supporters held to their view. They believed that many small transport people who had gone out of business as a result of the 1947 Act would be ready to rush back into business again and would buy up all the vehicles that were offered for sale. The fact is that there were very few men in a small way in the transport industry in 1947, and fewer still who wanted to come back in 1953.
The difference between hon. Members opposite and ourselves is precisely a

difference in ideology. They believe that it is better for the country to be organised by private individuals working for themselves and making profit out of the enterprise for themselves, whereas we believe that it is in the best interests of the country for the people themselves to organise their resources without the necessity of making large profits for private individuals.
This to some extent explains the failure of the 1953 Act: the prospect for any small man today, or even in 1947 and 1953, to enter the road haulage business—unless he had an ample supply of capital—was remote. He could not expect by his own merit and ability to build up a large transport undertaking. That might have been possible after the First World War, but the history of the process from 1918 to 1939, and indeed to 1947, has been one of evolution, with the small men, who started in 1919, having almost all been gobbled up by 1947. The industry itself has been evolving into larger and larger transport groups, and in 1947, when the Act of nationalisation was passed, there were not very many small men left in transport.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): This seems to me to be more relevant to a Second Reading debate than to Third Reading.

Mr. Sparks: I was trying to lead up to the point I want to make in connection with the Bill. This is one of a series of Bills and cannot be taken in isolation and without some reference to the Acts of 1947 and 1953. It arises out of the historical background. I was trying to emphasise that in 1953 the industry was not essentially an industry run by small men.
In 1953, however, hon. Members expected the small men to come back into the industry, and they were surprised to find that they could not dispose of all the vehicles. We find from the last report of the Disposal Board, from which the Bill arises, that the number of vehicles for disposal in 1953 was 32,819. Of these, 29,321 were offered for sale, but only 18,699 were sold. In other words, up to the Third Reading of the Bill, 10,622 vehicles remained unsold. Many were put up for sale twice or three times, but could not be sold.
The Government had to do something about this, despite the ideology of hon. Members opposite, unless they wished to commit a grave offence against the community. They were faced with a situation in which 10,622 vehicles could not be sold, even after several of them had been offered for sale many times. If they had attempted to throw the vehicles away at knock-down prices they would have been driven from office. They had to face reality, and we must give them credit for having faced reality.
As a result, we have the Bill—and that is the only piece of credit I can give to hon. Members opposite. But here is the weakness: hon. Members opposite ought to have put an end once and for all to the process of denationalisation. They have had three long years in which to carry out the principles of the 1953 Act and completely to denationalise road haulage, they have done their best, they have seen how far their policy can go, and at the end of three years they might well have called a halt and brought the whole thing to an end.
Our complaint is that they have not done so. They have brought the process of denationalisation, started in 1953, only partly to a halt, although their policy has not been successful. Of the 10,600 vehicles unsold, 4,106 are in the parcels company and 498 are meat vehicles. Those are the vehicles which the Government intend to dispose of over an unknown period of years. The remaining proportion of 5,400 they intend to allow the Transport Commission to retain for long-distance road haulage services, and on that account we must give the Government credit. But greater credit, as I have said, would have been due to them had they decided to call the whole thing to a halt and finish with it once and for all.
During the last three years there has been a good deal of unrest in the transport industry. For many years I was a railway clerk. It was my professional occupation, or whatever one likes to call it. At the age of 17 I joined the old Great Western Railway Company and since then I have been concerned with transport problems. All those who have had to wrestle with national transport problems have realised that the future of our country, our ability to organise our economic resources and export our goods

has become more and more, dependent upon efficient transport organisation.
The evil which we see in the 1953 Act is that the Government have thrown and are throwing the whole thing into the melting pot, and they will continue to retain in the melting pot the issue of the parcels company and the meat fleet. Industry has been through a difficult time largely as a result of the 1953 Act, and now we have a continuance in the parcels company and the meat vehicles of the uncertainty as to what is to happen. There is uncertainty of the staff, because how can we expect the best from the staff when the staff do not know whether they are to be employees of the British Transport Commission or whether they are to be handed over to someone else, unknown at the moment? The same applies to the operators of the meat vehicles. The customers of the parcels service and the meat vehicles transport service are not to know with whom they are having to do business over the next few years and, therefore, the whole service ought to have been brought to a halt.
Whether we like it or not, the evolutionary trend in transport, as well as in many other enterprises, indicates quite clearly that transport is evolving will nilly into a national form of organisation. Today the private enterprise of the small man in road haulage has gone in the same way as the private enterprise of the small man in railway organisation, gas, electricity and water has gone. I see that you are about to rise Mr. Deputy-Speaker, so I will not mention all the others, but they must be present in the minds of hon. Members, and they must know that the idea of small man private enterprise has departed long since from the basic industries of our country, of which transport is one.
When I say "basic industries," I do not mean only the railways and docks. I mean the roads as well, because the development of long-distance road haulage is a comparatively modern development over the last twenty or thirty years. It has, however, become as vital to the interests of the country as any of the others I have mentioned.

Mr. G. Wilson: How does the hon. Member reconcile that with the fact that the number of C licences is rocketing and


that they are mostly for people with quite small numbers of lorries and not big concerns?

Mr. Sparks: It may well be that the number of C licences is rocketing, but if he analysed the situation the hon. Member would know that hundreds of thousands of them are for the little milk carts which have taken the place of the old push-barrow or horse-drawn milk float. Hundreds of thousands of C licences have gone to these electrically-propelled vehicles. But I do not want to be diverted into that line, because I should be out of order.
Despite what the hon. Member says, he will find in the years ahead a development of the tendency for larger concerns to swallow up the smaller ones. The process continues because large-scale organisation is more economical and provides the consumer with a better and more efficient service at a lower cost. Our objection is that that advantage is in many cases enjoyed by private individuals who put the advantage into their own pockets when it should go to the community and to the State.
In the course of the years, all that hon. Members opposite did in 1953 will gradually be undone and there will be the development of large-scale organisations. The time will come when the people will decide that this Measure which we are about to pass and the previous one from which it has arisen will be wiped off the Statute Book and we shall give to transport its rightful place in the national economy. We shall see that it joins with all the other great basic industries and is used in the interests of the country and of the people to develop the economic resources of the nation to the highest point of efficiency.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) rather over-painted the picture in recalling that a short time ago British Road Services had 36,000 vehicles and already three-quarters of them have been disposed of to private enterprise; and before the whole tale is told, about five-sixths of them will have been got rid of and handed back. He cannot, therefore, say that the Government have not substantially carried out what they promised.
I would, however, agree with the implications of the hon. Member's remarks to the extent that we in this House tend to place too much emphasis on the question of ownership. We know that shareholders in private industry do not have very great power, and certainly, as representatives in this House who are shareholders of nationalised industries, we have very little power indeed. We are living in an age of management and of managerial revolution. Now that the question of ownership has been disposed of, we can let the managers of the nationalised industry and of the private sector fight it out to see which will be the better in future.
My appeal tonight is to reinforce what has been said. Let us hope that the Bill will take road transport out of politics for the future. I appeal to the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) and to the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) not to put this subject back in their programme for the future. That is not to say that they would ever have the opportunity to put it into effect even if they did include it in their programme. I seriously hope that they will seize this opportunity to take road transport out of politics. It would be a good thing for the industry and for industry and trade generally to know that for the next ten or twenty years the pattern would be as we have laid it down in the Bill. This is a fair compromise, hammered out under the auspices of my right hon. Friend, and I hope that the Opposition will accept it so that we can look forward to some stability in the road transport industry in the next ten or twenty years.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Pargiter: Whenever an industry is being handed over to private enterprise or preserved for private enterprise hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite lecture us on the desirability of keeping that industry out of politics, but whenever an industry is nationalised or sought to be nationalised by the Labour Party the Tory Party thinks it desirable to keep that industry in politics, so we do not value too highly statements made so glibly on that side of the House about the deplorable effects of politics on this or any other industry. Whether we like it or not, politics are taking an increasing


part in industry. It is almost impossible to think of an industry in which the State has not some stake, direct or indirect.
Presumably this Bill will become an Act of Parliament. When it does, I suggest that a copy of it, with a copy of the 1953 Act, should be nailed to the mast at the Tory Party's headquarters as a confession of the Tory Party's failure in transport. It would, perhaps, be more appropriate to nail them at half mast. The Tory Party has made a deplorable failure of the problem of transport.
When it came to power it thought it would be so easy to denationalise all the road transport industry. It found first that a large part was virtually nationalised before the war, and so the Tory Government could not do much about that. Considering what they could do they found they had to leave a large portion of the British Transport Commission's undertakings with the Commission. They found this was so even with road transport. Then their troubles really began.
They found that the Commission was operating vehicles efficiently, and far more efficiently than they had been operated under private enterprise. They found they could not take all the vehicles from the Commission, and then they found that to potential buyers of the Commission's vehicles it was not such an attractive proposition to buy them, as it would have been if all the vehicles could have been sold. That was the first sign of the failure of the Tory Government's policy in the denationalisation of road transport.
So there was a forced sale of thousands of vehicles with the very modest calculation of compensation fixed in 1953. The Commission did not accept the basis of compensation in the 1953 Act as being fair or reasonable, and it has suffered losses because of those forced sales, losses amounting to about £20 million. That is £20 million of public money which has to be found somehow or another. When it bought the undertakings under the original Act the Commission did not drive hard bargains but paid fair prices to the various companies concerned. Under the forced sale there was no question of a fair price. It was a question of the boys muscling in to get the assets of the Commission at the best possible prices for themselves, without consideration of the

very considerable losses in which the State would be involved.
If we accept the figure the right hon. Gentleman gave of £12¼ million, which is an extraordinary calculation, considering this is the amount of the levy, we are still faced with the fact that £12¼ million has gone down the drain somewhere. That is an indication of the failure of Tory policy in regard to transport, but if we accept that the true figure is about £20 million, it will be seen how great is the failure of the Tory Party in dealing with this problem of road transport. Not only have they got rid of national assets at a loss, but they have also robbed the country to a very considerable extent of efficient transport, and so much so that traders were alarmed at the risks which they were running in not being able to have their goods carried reasonably efficiently.
There is another side to the picture, of course. The Transport Levy was extremely unpopular with a lot of the constituents of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. It may well be that, although there has been some pressure, possibly, from the back benches opposite against this particular Bill, there has been an awful lot of pressure for it, and not from the point of view of the transport industry, but because of the desire on the part of many people to be rid of the Transport Levy. So it was very carefully tied up with the Bill, and hon. Gentlemen opposite were able to say, "Never mind what are the losses of the British Transport Commission on the sale of vehicles, the Government can come to you now and say that they have got rid of the objectionable levy." I think that that may have been one of the major desires in the minds of the Cabinet in deciding to call a halt to the sale of vehicles from the nationalised industry.
An integrated service has been partly broken up, but the rot has been stopped, and I am satisfied that, given sufficient time, the nationalised section of transport will prove beyond all shadow of doubt not only its efficiency but its ability to give service to the public. I am quite satisfied that it will not be very long before we shall have hon. Gentlemen opposite who are representatives, directly or indirectly, of the various interests involved, coming along to the Minister and saying, "What are you going to do


about the unfair competition from the nationalised industry?"
Mention has already been made, both in Committee and here again in the House, of this question of unfair trading. We have had some rather interesting examples of what is considered to be unfair trading. Anything which the British Transport Commission can do a little cheaper than private enterprise will be considered unfair trading. It will be interesting to see what will happen to the Clause which the Minister is putting into another Bill in connection with this matter, which is directly connected with this Bill. I appreciate that it has been taken out of this Bill at the moment, and, therefore, is not a subject for debate, but it will be very interesting to know where that will lead to.
What we can hope for is that the nationalised industry will continue to show, as part of an integrated service with the railways, that it can continue to make a profit, which will help to stem the tide of losses as far as the railways are concerned—losses which are inevitable. Nobody on the Government benches will talk about the denationalisation of the railways, because they are not making profits, and are not likely to do so for a long time. Nobody on that side is at all interested in the denationalisation of the railways, but they will obviously continue to be interested in the denationalisation of some of those industries which are profitable, as, for example, steel and road transport.
This Bill fails in many respects, because it should have stabilised the position for the British Transport Commission and ensured its ability to continue to run the whole of the services which it is now running successfully, and put a stop to this obvious failure of Tory policy. We were alarmed by some of the proposals in this Bill, and we have done our best to secure Amendments to the most objectionable proposals in it. I appreciate that the Minister, having regard to the susceptibilities of some of his own back benchers, was unable to make many concessions to us. We regret that, and I only express the hope that in the various processes that go on, it will be established that these various services that are supposed to be handed over to the companies will remain directly under the

control of the Commission, in order that the general transport system of the country may not suffer and that industry may have the best possible advantage from an efficient transport system.
It is important, as I am sure the Minister will agree, that we should look at transport as a whole, and the internal transport arrangements of this country are no longer in a state to face up to any type of competition. They are complementary services and the fact that they are complementary has already been established by the Transport Commission. Now they are to be rudely interrupted. We shall look forward to the day when we are able to look at our transport system as a whole and devise a system which will have the effect of reintegrating these services. If anybody has any bright ideas that on this side of the House we shall be willing to pay twice for those sections of the industry for which we have already paid once, and paid very dearly compared with the price at which they have been sold, he has another think coming.
I hope that in another place there will be further Amendments which will make the Bill more acceptable for the time being and which will give the Transport Commission a fair chance. Above all we want to be able to look to the future. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) referred to stability. There is no sign of stability in the Bill with its hiving off of the parcels service and the meat service and the possibility of the formation of other companies with political or financial advisers about their disposal. That is not a policy of stability.
If the Government had said that they had failed in their attempt to dispose of road transport and had decided to call a halt and to allow the Transport Commission to continue with its services, that would be sensible and honest. The Government have not done that. That would have been much too bitter a pill for them to swallow. I hope that the future will give us some degree of stability and that the meat organisation and the parcels service will continue to flourish and continue to make profits as they are doing and that hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will be sufficiently public-spirited to think of the public purse, instead of the private purse as they have been doing.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. Cole: In the concluding part of his speech, the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) used a rather ominous and sinister expression about the future of transport. I presume that he meant what would happen if his party got back into power. He said, "We shall not pay twice". I hope that that will remain on the record for us to note and for us to be beware of it in the future.

Mr. Pargiter: I am very happy for it to go on the record.

Mr. Cole: In the earlier part of his speech, the hon. Member said that we appealed for transport to be taken out of politics whenever private enterprise was gaining something of advantage. I entirely fail to understand his logic. Does he think that the private hauliers are glad to see the Bill, and, in particular, Clause 1, leaving 7,750 vehicles with the Commission? The hauliers do not like that part of the Bill. Despite that, my hon. Friends and I have felt and still feel that this should be the time when transport should be taken out of party politics. We are, in fact, making a concession to nationalisation by allowing the B.T.C. to retain all these vehicles.
Hon. Members know my views about the number of vehicles to be retained and my hon. Friends and I have done our best to get the numbers reduced. We still think that the number is too large and we are not happy about Clause 1. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend has had a most unpalatable task. He has had to put forward to the House, as a new Minister, a Bill which is certainly not persona grata with his own back benches and which, judging from the Divisions in Committee and in the House tonight, is not entirely acceptable to hon. Members opposite.
I commend my right hon. Friend upon the way he has guided the Bill through its stages, upon the plaudits he has earned from the other side of the House, and upon the celerity with which our work has been done. The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) and other hon. and right hon. Members opposite feel that within a measureable distance of time road transport will automatically become a nationalised undertaking by the ordinary passage of events and that private

enterprise will no longer figure in the picture.
If that is the view held by hon. and right hon. Members opposite, they are sadly mistaken. They are very much under-rating the vitality of private enterprise if they think that it will vanish from the scene. On the contrary, one of the happy things about this set-up—and there are some unhappy aspects—is that private enterprise as a whole will set the pace and the British Transport Commission will bring its general procedure and efficiency to the standards of private enterprise. The Commission is more than capable of doing that.
There are things in the Bill on which we have all commented adversely, but there is one thing which I warmly commend. It is pleasant to see the approaching end of the Transport Levy. It has not been popular with anybody of any kind of politics or of no politics at all. After the Bill receives the Royal Assent and becomes an Act, the levy will come to an end this year. I hope that we shall never see anything of the kind again.
I am glad that the Clause which we have lost from the Bill today will be inserted into another Measure, to control the industry. I do not think that the Transport Commission needs monopoly powers. It can stand on its own feet and go ahead by virtue of its own efficiency. We all hold the view that any kind of monopoly is anathema to the public interest and our way of life, and that applies in all connections. I am glad that we shall have a Clause in another Bill to regulate and control the situation generally.
I want to make an appeal which has been made several times already in the course of our debate. Perhaps the oftener it is made the greater will be its effect. We have had three transport Bills in less than nine years. Each has sought, in its own way, to make some vital change in transport. It has been truly said that our standard of life and the measure of our well-being depends upon the efficiency of our transport. It is possible that we have now arrived at some kind of happy solution of the problem, though no hon. Member can be entirely satisfied.
Despite the remarks of the hon. Member for Southall, and the question of whether what he said is in the programme of the party opposite, on the basis that


we on this side of the House have made some concession to the nationalisation point of view in this Bill, I appeal to the party opposite to do its utmost, in the unlikely event of its coming into power, to carry on the practice which we have instituted and take transport out of the realm of politics. Transport policy, like foreign policy, should be on a bipartisan basis, in the sense that all the experts on transport in the House should get together and pool their ideas for the benefit of the industry.
Once again, I commend my right hon. Friend, who has had to introduce a Bill unpalatable to everyone. Despite criticism, he has brought this Measure to the stage at which it will, in a few minutes, receive its Third Reading.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies: We have reached the concluding stages of the Third Reading of this Bill, and I am disappointed that the Measure we are now considering does not differ materially from the one which received a Second Reading last February. There have been Amendments in certain particulars, some good and some bad, but by and large it is very much the same Bill. I am disappointed, because in the meantime there has been a change of Minister. Certain of my hon. Friends have paid compliments to the right hon. Gentleman on the manner in which he has piloted this Bill and the way in which he has approached transport problems. I had hoped that, as a consequence, some of the worst features of the Bill would have been eliminated or at least changed, and that the final Measure would be more acceptable to hon. Members on both sides of the House than is the present Bill.
It would seem that in effect this Bill is partly a compromise between different interests, but on balance it represents a reluctant, grudging, ungracious and inadequate admission by the Government of the failure of their policy as outlined in the 1953 Act and of the failure of their doctrinaire policy regarding denationalisation. The retentions provided for in Clause 1 reveal that the Government have had to surrender to the demands of industry to retain the most efficient transport service which has ever served it. Industry wished that the nationalised network of the trunk ser-

vices and the associated services should be kept in being because it had proved so successful and because it was clear that, were a policy of denationalisation pressed, that valuable service would be disintegrated. On the other hand, the rest of the Bill represents a distinct surrender to the road haulage interests and particularly to the Road Haulage Association which pulls the strings governing the puppets on the Government back benches who have been backing this Bill.
All that was necessary was a one-Clause Bill to terminate the disposal of the road haulage organisation of the British Transport Commission. We support Clause 1 to the extent that it brings to an end the further disposal of the general haulage business of British Transport Commission. We regret, as we have stated during this debate, that it has been decided to cut down the number of special A licences to which the Commission is entitled to 7½ per cent. We consider that a fraudulent device in order to reduce the number of effective vehicles under the control of the Commission. We are opposed to the other Clauses in this Bill.
Some further information from the Minister would be welcome tonight, especially in regard to his intentions in relation to the final disposal of the balance of the British Transport Commission road haulage undertakings, namely, the parcels and meat services. During our debates the Minister indicated that he had no intention of disposing of the parcels service at present. During the Second Reading debate he said:
Therefore I think it is our duty now, in the public interest, to run this company"—
that is, the parcels company—
as a proper operating commercial concern for a period and then see how it gets on. It will also show what sort of trading results it can give, and that is the right sort of thing to do in the public interest, certainly not to attempt to sell again at this moment when it is obvious that we cannot get any acceptable offer.
He confirmed that during the Committee stage.
I was, therefore, very shocked to read these words, in the 13th April issue of Motor Transport, in an article from its political correspondent:
M.P.s are impatient that the parcels company should be re-offered under the new terms permitted in the Bill, which they expect to see happen by June at the latest.


If that statement is to be believed it means that pressure has already been put upon the Minister to re-offer the parcels company by June at the latest. When the Minister replies I hope that he will be able to assure the House that that article is at fault, and that he has no intention whatsoever of departing from his undertaking to this House, namely, that he is not intending to dispose of the parcels company for two or three years. Hon. Members on this side of the House, of course, hope that he will not dispose of it at all.
We have grounds for some doubts about the manner in which these intentions will be carried out—because the Minister also informed us that he thought it was not desirable to offer the meat company at the present time. It was only very shortly after he had told the House that that another offer of the meat vehicles was made. It would be interesting to know what the result of that re-offer has been.

Mr. Watkinson: As I explained during the Second Reading debate, there was a difference with regard to the meat service, and I said that if I got an acceptable offer I might decide to accept it.

Mr. Davies: That may be so, but I would remind the right hon. Gentleman of what he said during the Second Reading debate. Following the words which I have previously quoted, he said:
The same general principle applies to the meat company. There again we must, in view of the lack of an acceptable offer, say that it shall be run as a company for a time, and we will see what its results are."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th February, 1956; Vol. 548, c. 1936.]
It would be helpful to the House if the Minister could give us some indication of his intentions regarding the parcels company. We have fears about some of the statements he has made so far. The main one is that if the Commission continues to run the parcels service and builds up its business successfully, operating at a profit for a period of years, the Government will then offer it for sale. I ask the Minister whether that would be fair to the Commission. If the Commission carries the burden of operating this company and succeeds, why should it be deprived of this service as soon as it has proved that it is worth purchasing? It is not fair that the Commission should

operate the parcels service and then lose it because it has succeeded in making it a profitable business. I hope that the Minister will not then say that there are purchasers in the market and that the service should be handed over to them.
The Commission would thereby be deprived not only of the assets but of the profits made by the parcels company. Goodness knows, the British Transport Commission needs every penny of revenue it can get. It is in a very bad financial situation, as we know from statements made recently by the Minister, it is even in a worse position because of the Minister interfering in its affairs and preventing it from putting up charges to fulfil its statutory obligations We have doubts about the final intentions of the Government in this respect.
We retain another cause for fear because, under Clause 2, the procedure for disposal is similar to that which was followed with steel. After the Bill becomes law, the parcels and meat companies can be re-organised and their securities can be sold, not necessarily in one parcel or necessarily all the securities at once. Sections of them can presumably be retained by the Commission. We have followed what has occurred with steel and have seen how profitable the disposal of the steel companies has been to speculators and investors who purchased the equity stock of a large number of steel companies. These were sold off at favourable prices and the value of them has consequently very considerably increased.
The Iron and Steel Realisation Agency has been left with the fixed interest-bearing securities. It would be helpful if the Minister gave an assurance that it is not in his mind that the Commission should follow the same procedure. Presuming that the assets of the parcels company are worth £12 million, if the steel procedure were followed it could lead to the capital being valued at £2 million and the remaining £10 million being issued in fixed interest-bearing securities. The Commission might then sell the £2 million equity which would entitle the purchasers to the profits which the Commission is at present earning, in which case the £1 million which would presumably continue to be earned by the parcels company would go into the private pockets of the purchasers of the equity


stock. The Commission would be left with the £10 million fixed interest-bearing securities. That would be most unfair to the Commission because it would be getting no more than it is having to pay out on its own capital and it would be deprived of the very useful profits which are going into the general revenue of the Commission and helping to offset losses in other directions.
I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that he has not that procedure at the back of his mind as to the manner in which the parcels company will be sold. We endeavoured to carry Amendments in Committee to prevent this from taking place but, unfortunately, the Minister rejected them.
We still have a number of objections to certain of the Clauses and we also regret some omissions. We regret, in particular, that the Clauses which provide for disposal do not include a time limit on sales. This means that the Commission will be left indefinitely in a state of uncertainty. Equally important, private enterprise will retain an indefinite option to purchase the securities of the Commission when a favourable time for private enterprise arises. It leaves in the Minister's hands power to select a time at an indefinite date when disposal will be completed.
Another strong objection which remains, which has been discussed in Committee and which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor), is that there is no protection whatever for the Commission against loss on disposal. The Bill brings the levy to an end at the end of this year, but there is no guarantee that by that time it will have brought in sufficient to pay back to the Commission the loss which it has incurred through the sale of its assets. If it has not, the Commission must make up the difference. That is grossly unjust to the Commission and is a breach of the undertaking which was given to the House and the understanding under which the Commission disposed, of vehicles. I suggest that throughout the debates on the 1953 Act there was an implicit undertaking that the Commission would not bear any loss as a result of disposal but that the loss would be met out of the levy.
In view of the Commission's financial position today, it is more vital than ever

that it should not incur a further loss on disposal. I contend that the estimated loss of £12½ million, which by coincidence is exactly the same as the levy is expected to bring in, is not a true estimate and will be inadequate to cover the real loss which the Commission will incur.
The 1953 Act provided for the estimation of the loss. The Commission never agreed with the basis, and I contend that it is quite inappropriate to estimate the loss on the basis of sales which have taken place to date and to ignore the changed position which results from the retentions provided for in Clause 1. The main reason for that is that under the 1953 Act the loss had to be estimated on the basis of taking into account the goodwill attached to the Road Services.
The goodwill carried in the balance sheet was estimated at £33 million, but it was based on the monopoly rights which the Commission had under the 1947 Act in long-distance commercial road haulage. The whole basis on which long-distance haulage was acquired, and for the permits the Commission granted to private enterprise to operate, was a form of monopoly in the commercial operation of long-distance transport. That system came to an end with the 1953 Act, but in estimating the loss the goodwill has been apportioned, we understand, between the vehicles which are sold and those which are retained, on the same basis.
In other words, it is estimated that the Commission retains between one-quarter and one-third of the vehicles which it originally held; and that the loss of goodwill is proportional to the number of vehicles which are sold. If the goodwill resulted from the giving of monopoly rights, and those monopoly rights are brought to an end, it cannot be said that a proportion of that goodwill remains in exact ratio to the number of vehicles which are retained. The goodwill which the B.R.S. has built up exists, of course, but that is not a monopoly goodwill. It is a goodwill which arises from the success of its operation.
If the loss were fairly assessed, it would certainly be considerably higher than £12,250,000. That £12,250,000 is on the basis of the parcels and meat being sold without further loss, so we were told by the Minister in Committee. That is to


say, if the meat and parcels are now sold there will be no loss accruing to the Commission. If that is so, and if the meat and parcels were sold at a loss, that loss would be added to the £12,250,000 and it would mean that the Commission itself would have to meet the additional loss entailed by selling off the meat and parcels.
As the present estimate does not include any loss on parcels and meat, and since if they were sold at a loss the loss would fall upon the Commission, the Minister should assure the House that the sale of neither the meat section nor the parcels service would be authorised unless the prices realised were at least equal to those taken into account in estimating the total loss. That is the least that can be asked of the Minister to ensure that the Commission does not have to meet a loss which it incurs through no fault of its own.
What justification is there for insisting on the sale of the parcels service? It may be that the Minister is not going to sell for two or three years, but why does he now take the power to sell this service? What justification is there for insisting that because it had to be sold under the 1953 Act, disposal must still proceed? During the proceedings on this Bill not a single convincing argument has been submitted in justification of further sales. In fact, not a single reason has been given why the parcels service should be sold. No attempt has been made to inform the House of any advantage whatever that would accrue to the industry or to the transport user or to the community as a whole by the sale of the parcels service. There have been no complaints in this House about the operation of these services. We know how successful they are—a fact to which reference has been made by several hon. Members today. The Minister owes it to the House to say what is wrong with the B.R.S. operation of the parcels service that he insists that it must still be sold off.
In that connection, I would refer to the appeals which have been made by hon. Members opposite that transport should now be taken out of the arena of politics, that once this Bill is passed transport should be given a rest from politics. We on these benches agree completely that the greater the rest from interference which is given to transport

and the less interference there is, the better it will be for the industry and for the service it gives. But I would add that there cannot be finality on the transport question if the parcels service of the British Transport Commission is disposed of.
If those parcels services are disposed of, the basis of the 1947 Act is undermined; the operation of a national service in the hands of the Commission is brought to an end, and the Government is thereby responsible for opening the door to the renationalisation of a section of the Commission's undertaking. If the Government want stability in the transport industry, as the Minister and his supporters say they do, then he must abandon this idea of disposing of the parcels services, or, for that matter, of the meat service as well.
This Bill does nothing to change the declared intentions of the Opposition in regard to transport policy on its return to power. The Labour Party, when it is in power, will see to it that the Commission is in no way handicapped in fulfilling the main purpose of the 1947 Act, namely, the establishment of a fully integrated, publicly owned transport service. To the extent that the expansion of its road haulage undertaking is necessary to that end, it will be facilitated. The Commission will be adequately empowered to build up these services to the extent necessary.
The Government's transport policy has been as disastrous a failure as its economic policy generally. It has interfered too much and too often with the affairs of the Commission. The best service it can now do, we fully agree, is to leave it alone to allow it to continue to serve the community without this threat of further disintegration hanging over it.
When the 1953 Act was being discussed, the Opposition predicted that the Government would have to come to the House to empower the Commission to retain certain of its services. We stated that it would not be possible for the Government, through the Road Haulage Disposal Board, to dispose of all those vehicles in regard to which powers were taken under the 1953 Act. This Bill shows that we were right. The Government has had to come to the House in order that the Commission might be given power to retain certain of its services. For


that we are glad. I predict with equal confidence, as we did in 1953, that there will have to be another Measure brought before this House, a Measure to enable the Commission to retain its parcels services, because, before this Government can dispose of them, there will have been a change of Government in this country. I am confident that the next Transport Bill will be brought before the House by a Labour Government.

9.33 p.m.

Mr. Watkinson: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) has asked me a number of questions. I will endeavour to reply to some of them in making my winding-up speech on the Third Reading of this Measure.
I must say right away that it is no use right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite saying that this Measure stems entirely, as their phrase is, from the failure of our transport policy. To be fair to them, that comment has been one of their few excursions into party politics; we have had, if I may say so, a very moderate, factual, and able debate.
A number of hon. Members opposite added remarks about "doctrinaire approach". If we had wanted to be doctrinaire, we could have sold every single lorry. I think it is well that that should be realised. If we had wanted to carry out this idea to its full extent, if we had decided that we must be able to say that we had fully implemented the 1953 Act, then, as I am sure anybody in the House who knows anything about transport realises, we could have done it, and done it easily. Indeed, I have been pressed quite properly to do this ever since I have been Minister, and this shows clearly the large unsatisfied demand that still exists, particularly for large heavy lorries offered in very small numbers.
I think that it is, therefore, only right that it should be known that the reason why this Measure is brought before the House is because—and on this I speak, I am sure, not only for the Government, but for every member of the Conservative Party—we attached more importance, in the public interest, to trying to make the transport system work and to keeping it a reasonably integrated system We put that aim a great deal ahead of any desire to implement the Act by smashing up the trunk services.
I say that this Act does not stem from failure. What it stems from is the kind of attitude which many hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed today. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) and the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) have asked, I know absolutely sincerely, "Is not it time that we really did give this industry a rest from the whirligigs of party politics?" Of course, it is. This Measure is an attempt to get a sensible, middle of the road solution.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey, who was, I think, excessively kind to me and I very much appreciate it because, whatever political views I may hold, I do believe in transport—said that the 1953 Act was a piece of party political warfare. So was the 1947 Act. Pendulums have a way of swinging one way or the other. The 1947 Act was just as big a piece of political foolery from our point of view as, no doubt, the 1953 Act is from the point of view of hon. Members opposite. This Measure is an attempt to put the pendulum where it ought to be, in the middle, and get a sensible solution.

Mr. Mellish: Our Act had at least some substance in that it was brought in on the recommendation earlier of the Royal Commission, but the 1953 Act was brought in to satisfy the Tory Party.

Mr. Watkinson: That is a matter of opinion. I do not think that we want to go into the past history of transport because I am more concerned, and so is this Measure, with the future of this great industry.
I want to answer the points made by the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) about the future of the meat and parcels services. I will deal, first, with meat. The answer to that, as I said clearly on Second Reading, is that if I did not get an acceptable offer, it would be run on the same basis as the parcels, which I will describe in detail in a moment.
It so happens that another offer, as I think this House knows, has been made and I am awaiting the advice of the Disposal Board on that offer. I have not yet received it or I would tell the House what it is. As soon as I receive it, I will see that the House knows what the decision may be. I say again, that unless


it is a fully acceptable offer, not only a proper financial offer but covering such things as the security of the staff, and so on, I shall not feel that it is in the public interest to accept it. If the offer is not accepted, then what do we do with these two companies?
The meat one is not very big; the parcels one is very big and very important, but both are important to the industries of this country. If we took a strictly doctrinaire approach, there would be no difficulty at all in selling the meat lorries tomorrow. As refrigerated lorries they would fetch good prices. There would be no difficulty in breaking up the parcels service and selling it off in penny numbers. We could do that with the greatest ease. What I have said—this is the assurance which I have made many times before—is that we are not prepared to do that. We are not prepared to break up these companies and sell them as chattels and single lorries, and so on, nor are we prepared to sell them off at bargain prices.
That was why we stood out against the Amendments moved by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, which would have put us under the pressure of an appointed selling day. As the right hon. Gentleman, with his financial knowledge, himself admits, that would be the best way of getting rid of them at a bargain price. Therefore, I have felt it right only to say that we will not sell off these companies at a job price to a job buyer. That is the first assurance.
It therefore flows logically from what I have said that it will be necessary, certainly as far as parcels are concerned, for us to run the parcels company for a period of years so that it may establish the proper trading record and proper balance sheet background that it should have. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who has explained why he cannot be present just now, it is my intention that these companies should have clearly ascertainable accounts. Indeed, it is my intention that they should conform in that respect in all ways to the general principles of the Companies Act. Of course, they already give a great deal of information, in some cases more than they need give under the Companies Act; but let us run this company on a proper financial basis, with a proper

board of directors, with a maximum of good will, and we shall see how we get on.
The only other things I will take into account if and when the time comes to sell are that some security of tenure for the staff must be present and that I would not be prepared to sell off the company under a "phoney" financial arrangement. The point made in that respect by the hon. Member for Enfield, East about leaving the Commission with all the debentures and selling off the interesting equity stock, and so on, is a quite proper one. It is to try to guard against that that I have already said—and I repeat it tonight—that I would not rest on my own advice alone when the time comes for these sales to be made and if the Disposal Board has gone, as it may well have done, I will take steps to see that impartial advice is available to me. I will not, therefore, act alone, but take the advice of people—perhaps of the nature of Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve—who will certainly take the broad national view and advise me in the general national interest.
Further than that I cannot go, nor would it be proper for me to say more. I hope that that gives some sense of security and continuity to the people who work in these companies. I would only sum up by saying that it is my intention, and the intention of my successors, if that should be any, in this Government, that those people are given a fair deal. It is, I am sure, the view also of every member of the Conservative Party in this House.
The other main point raised by the hon. Member and by others concerns the question of the Transport Levy. I will not go into the great detail, but there are three points that make it quite plain that here again, taking one thing with another, the Commission has had a reasonably fair deal. The first thing is the amount of the levy to be paid as compensation being £12¼ million. Had that figure been wrong—everybody says that it is a great coincidence and it may be—we had plenty of time to alter the levy to acquire sufficient money fairly to compensate the Commission. The auditors of the Commission agreed that the estimate of the loss was a reasonable one in present circumstances.

Mr. Pargiter: Did they not say that it was reasonable in the light of the conditions laid down in the 1953 Act?

Mr. Watkinson: I was coming to that and was about to say that what I meant by "present circumstances", to be fair to the Commission, was with reference to the 1953 Act.
The other point of which hon. Members should take account is that when all this was looked into and when the calculations under the Third Schedule of the 1953 Act were made, the Commission's auditors did take the view after much consideration that this was on the whole a proper and practical division and I agree, bearing the Act in mind. All I would say, therefore, is that this is not something which has been done absolutely behind the Commission's back. Its auditors have had every chance to look at it. The Government would have continued the levy longer or increased its amount if the balance had not been recovered.
As to the selling off of the parcels and meat companies, if and when they should be sold, they are valued only at the written down value of their physical assets, and, taking into account the assurances which I have given, I do not think it is very likely that the Commission will suffer any loss in that transaction. Indeed, there should be every chance of its making a reasonable profit.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman, then, give a definite assurance that he will not authorise their sale unless there will be no loss resulting from their sale?

Mr. Watkinson: I am not going to bind myself further than I have done. I think I have given a formidable list of assurances, and I do not think anybody could expect me to go further.
There is one other matter which has been mentioned by many speakers and particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), and that is the importance which so many of us I think on both sides of the House attach to this sort of competitive co-existence in the future in this great industry. The hon. Member for Enfield, East made the very interesting point in his concluding speech—I know he will correct me if I recall him wrongly—that he and his hon. Friends attached great

importance to the sale of the parcels and meat companies, and that, if the companies were sold, they would pledge themselves to deal with them again. He was rather vague about what they would think of the future of this industry should the companies stay with the Commission.
I think that the country regards the organisational pattern of this great industry as settled. I shall not deal with the question whether the parcels company is sold, because, whether it be sold or not, it will be run as a separate entity with separate accounts, and so on, and that, I think, is right and in the public interest. Leaving that apart, I think the present set-up, the present organisational pattern, is right, and, I think, therefore, that all those in this House who sincerely believe in transport, as I certainly do, believe that it should now be left alone.
The hon. Gentleman said that we made no major improvements by this Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss), dismissed with scant attention, I thought, my attempt to impose equal sanctions on all sections of the industry against unfair competition. Whatever the Opposition's view may be, the Government takes a very strong view of the necessity of having fair competition and no monopoly. This Measure has been carefully thought out to see that there is no unfair competition in the road haulage side of the industry. This matter will be dealt with in the Road Traffic Bill, and I shall press it as hard as I can, because I attach great importance to having a general principle of the kind added to that Bill. I agreed to delete it from this Bill only because I thought it fair to apply it to both sides of the industry.
That indicates our feeling that the important thing about this industry now is to get it working efficiently. I hope that both sides will come together, and that British Road Services and private enterprise will make full use of their joint consultative council and work together for the good of the industry as a whole. I pledge myself to try to bring the odd disposals that remain to an end as quickly as I can, and to try to tidy up things so that people can know what the future will be. I certainly will press on with that as quickly as I possibly can.
This is a part of the process of reshaping the industry. We have had nine years' experience now of this transport set-up in the form into which it was put—I know, most sincerely—in 1947. It is time, in any case, that we had another look at it, and it is a job to which the Commission and myself will have to give earnest and anxious thought over the next six months. This Bill is a part of that operation, because it has brought into the industry, I believe, a right and fair balance between private enterprise and public enterprise.
Therefore, I think it should enable us now to regard the Commission as no longer a sort of political object of either scorn or praise, because I do not think it is now fair to say that the Commission is either nationalised or de-nationalised. In its present organisation, I believe it has become—shall I say—a public utility. I think that is the right description. It is a utility which it is in the national interest of the country as a whole to support and to see that it is made as efficient as possible for the benefit of the whole of industry and commerce.
That is the object of the Government in bringing forward this Measure. It was not born in defeat or failure, but born in the hope that this is the end of a long and sordid story, and that this great transport industry is now to have the full benefit of public enterprise and private competitive enterprise working together for their own mutual benefit, and, what is much more important, for the benefit of the country as a whole. It is in the belief that this is the end of a long chapter, as well as the right end, that I commend this Measure to the House.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — ROAD TRAFFIC [MONEY] (No. 2)

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to road traffic and the provision of parking places and for other purposes, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums payable out of such moneys (whether under the said Act or other enactments) by virtue of provisions of the said Act relating to the construction, maintenance, alteration and removal (whether before or after the commencement of the said Act of the present Session) of works in the carriageway—

(a) for separating different parts of the road;
(b) for regulating the movement of traffic at cross-roads or other road junctions; and
(c) for providing places of refuge for foot passengers;

and to the lighting, covering, fencing, and planting of such works, and the payment out of such moneys or payment into the Exchequer of any sums so payable by virtue of provisions of the said Act relating to street parking places and to traffic signs.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

9.53 p.m.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): I think it was the wish of the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) and his hon. Friends that I should briefly explain why this particular Bill has a second Money Resolution. I can explain it very quickly, and it is quite a proper reason.
It is that, because the Bill will have to be recommitted, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, when it comes back to the House for Report and Third Reading, it is necessary that this second Money Resolution should be put down in the normal way to cover the discussions in Committee—and, of course, it will in no way prejudice that discussion on two of the new Clauses and one Amendment. Perhaps I may explain what they are.
The first of the new Clauses is a provision as to dual carriageways, roundabouts and street refuges, and, while the


details of this can be explained in debate at the proper time, the Resolution is needed to cover the fact that we have found that my Ministry has not adequate powers at the moment to make these great new motorways and trunk roads. We do not have the power to set up central reservations, and there is also doubt as to our real power, for example, to put up fences on trunk roads. This is a technical matter, but it does require a Money Resolution.
The second new Clause deals with traffic signs, and gives the Minister power to direct highway authorities in special cases to put up traffic signs of an authorised type. Again, because money is involved, this has to be covered by a Money Resolution.
The third is an Amendment which gives me power of Amendment of Clause 12 of the Bill to designate parking places and to make charges to be exercised for the purpose of experiment or demonstration with regard to parking meters where no proposals are made by a local authority. This is actually to give me the same powers as are possessed by the police in London to carry out experimental traffic schemes. Those are the three Measures for which the Money Resolution is required. They are, of course, debatable.

9.56 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I do not want to debate the issues involved. I am still not clear why it is necessary to bring in a second Money Resolution. I think that the explanation is, if I understood the Minister correctly, that the Ministry, or the Treasury—I am not sure which decides the wording of the Money Resolution—made a mistake and did not draw the Money Resolution wide enough to cover the provisions which were already in the Bill when it was presented to the House and that, through a Departmental error, the Money Resolution did not cover the first two matters which the Minister mentioned.

Mr. Watkinson: I understand that this arose not from error, but rather from the vast number of Amendments which my predecessor and I accepted in Committee to make the Bill as sensible and practicable as possible.

Mr. Strauss: The provision of dual carriageways for the new roads was not a matter which arose in Committee. Even if it was, it is quite certain that, in the first place, the Money Resolution should have been drawn wide enough to deal with all these things and that apparently it was not. I therefore make the point that the Ministry was in error. It should have drawn the Money Resolution wide enough to cover not only those things which are in the Bill, but the normal and natural Amendments which would arise, and which the Committee might want to accept.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): indicated dissent.

Mr. Strauss: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary disagrees. Perhaps he will give us an explanation.
If the Minister comes here in sackcloth and ashes and says, "These things have arisen; they are very technical and have been overlooked by the Department. We ask forgiveness and ask the House to agree to the Money Resolution to put things right", that is understandable and we would accept it.
We are bound to point out that not long ago the Government asked the House to agree to a second Money Resolution to the Teachers (Superannuation) Bill, because the original Resolution had not been drawn wide enough. That is the sort of thing which might happen once, but which should not happen twice within so short a time. However, if those are the only things that go wrong with the Government's activities, we are quite happy. Unfortunately, more important things also go wrong.
If this is a technical mistake, or an oversight, I want to know where we are. If it is a technical oversight, we should be told. We would accept it reluctantly and tell the Government not to do it again, but at the moment the situation is not clear.

Mr. Watkinson: I will wear sackcloth and ashes, if that appeases the right hon. Gentleman. We attach great importance to the Bill, because, among other things, five thousand people a year are killed on our roads.
perhaps I should have said that these matters are new. For example, the one dealing with signs does not arise from an Amendment in Committee, but from something which we should have put into the Bill and did not. As a new Minister, finding odd things in the Bill which I wanted to see tidied up, I probably overlooked it. To that extent I am culpable, and if it helps the right hon. Gentleman for me to accept sackcloth and ashes, and wear a placatory mien, I will certainly do so.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I hope that the Minister will not feel uncomfortable in wearing the sackcloth and putting the ashes on his head, but I still do not think he has gone far enough. This is the second time within a few weeks that the Government have had to ask the House to approve a second Money Resolution on their own Bill. It lends point to what I have said on former occasions—that Money Resolutions are now drawn so tightly that when the Government want to make Amendments in their own Bill they are precluded from doing so. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that this Money Resolution covers something which was accepted in Committee and put into the Bill.

Mr. Watkinson: No, there were certain commitments given in Committee, partly by my predecessor and partly by myself. When I found that they were no fewer than 41 in number, a large proportion of which had found their way on to the Order Paper, it was quite natural that as a new Minister I should have gone through the whole Bill. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would have done the same. It was only in the course of that process that I found that the Money Resolution did not cover some of the commitments which I wanted to implement, perhaps not exactly in the same way as my predecessor. Therefore, I had to come to a difficult decision. I had either to give up some of these provisions, which I thought important, or ask for a second Money Resolution.
It may well be that the Money Resolution was drawn too tightly. I will not argue that. I could easily have dropped the matters which I wanted to implement and dispensed with a second Money Resolution, but I attached importance to them.

I do not think there is a great matter of principle here, but if I have erred I will wear the appropriate garment. I attach great importance to securing these things, if the House of Commons will give me permission so to do when we come to them. I hope that I shall be given the Money Resolution. If the Opposition put the need for a second Money Resolution down to my innocence, I shall not mind.

Mr. Ede: The Committee will, I am sure, sympathise with the Minister. This is not his Bill and it may well be that one or two things which have appealed to him might not have appealed to his predecessor, but they might have appealed to the Opposition. One of the difficulties which we have been in, certainly in connection with the Teachers (Superannuation) Bill, and it would appear to some extent with this Bill, has been the fact that matters which can legitimately arise in the course of the passage of a Bill cannot be discussed in Committee because the Money Resolution is so tightly drawn that there is no elbow room. We are getting to a position where Government in these matters is almost assuming the position of a dictatorship in having a Bill drafted and then a Money Resolution so tightly drawn that any alteration in the Bill itself will be ruled out by the Chair on the ground that it is not within the Money Resolution.
It is not carrying these things that really matters when we are in Committee, but the fact that the Chairman will not allow discussion of them to begin. There is an Amendment on the Order Paper and the Chairman has to rule that while it appears to be within the scope of the Bill it is not within the scope of the Money Resolution. If we are to have Government by discussion, which I understand is the essence of parliamentary Government, we must have reasonable opportunity to discuss these matters on a big Bill like this.
I hope that the Bill will mean, as the Minister has hinted, that we shall be able to do something to stop the appalling holocaust on the roads. We are not likely to have a Bill like this every year or even every three years. We hope that when the Bill is on the Statute Book it will be a lasting Measure which will not need reviewing by the House of Commons for at least ten or fifteen years. It is, therefore, desirable that the reasonable


matters which come within the scope of discussion should not be ruled out in Committee because the Money Resolution has been so tightly drawn that the Chairman says that we cannot even talk about them.
I hope that the Chief Whip and the Leader of the House will take into consideration the fact that on two occasions within a couple of months the Government have had to ask for a second Money Resolution so that they might amend a Bill in particulars with which the Government themselves want to deal. I quite agree that the right hon. Gentleman has taken over someone else's Bill and therefore it is perhaps hardly fair to ask him to sit in sackcloth and ashes. But were he in this cold weather to wear a white sheet sufficiently thick to protect himself from the effects of the climate, that would be sufficient.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Glover: Having listened to what has been said by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) about this second Money Resolution, I should like to express my warm congratulations to my right hon. Friend for having the courage, not only to alter the Bill and to make it a better Measure, but to admit his action frankly. I would far sooner have a second Money Resolution and a better Bill. I consider it a little ungenerous

for the Opposition, at this stage, to criticise my right hon. Friend for his action when he has admitted that his main reason for doing so was in order to present a better Bill.

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — UNDERGROUND WORKS (LONDON) [MONEY]

Resolution Reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to vest in the Minister of Works certain underground works constructed in London during the recent war as air-raid shelters, together with other works connected therewith and land adjacent to those works; and for purposes connected with the matter aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the said Minister under or by virtue of the said Act and any expenses incurred by him in maintaining the shelters and other works to which the said Act relates;
(b) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by the said Minister by virtue of the said Act.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. R. Thompson.]

Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Ten o'clock.